LIBRARY 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 


PRESENTED  BY 
MRS.   MACKINLEY   HELM 


L,i: 


UaH^u.,^S^^ 


ijS^X.  w*^ 


A  CRITICAL 

INTRODUCTION    TO    THE 

NEW    TESTAMENT 


STUDIES  IN  THEOLOGY 


Christianity  and  Ethics. 

Bt  Archibald  B.  D.  Alexanoek,  MA.,  D.D. 
The  Environment  of  Early  Christianity. 

By  S.  Angus,  M.A.,  Ph.D. 
Histoiy  of  the  Study  of  Theology.    VuL  L 
VoLIL 

By  Dr.  C.  A.  Briogs. 
The  Christian  Hope. 

By  W.  Adams  Brown,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
Christianity  and  Social  Questions. 

By  William  Cunningham,  F.B.A.,  D.D.,  D.Sc. 
The  Justification  of  God. 

By  Rev.  P.  T.  Forsyth. 
Chri^ian  Apologetics. 

By  Rev.  A.  E.  Garvie. 
A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

By  George  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 
Gospel  Origins. 

By  William  West  Holdsworth,  M.A. 
FaitSi  and  Its  Psychology. 

By  William  R.  Inoe,  D.D. 
Christianity  and  Sin. 

By  Robert  Mackintosh,  D.D. 
Protestant  Thought  Before  Kant 

By  A.  C.  McGifFERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 
The  Theology  of  the  Gospels. 

By  James  Moffatt,  D.D.,  D.Litt. 
History  of  Christian  Thought  Since  Kant. 

By  Edward  Caldwell  Moore,  D.D. 
The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement. 

By  J.  K.  Mozlky,  M.A. 
Revelation  and  Inspiration. 

By  James  Orr,  D.D. 
A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 

By  Arthi;r  Samuel  Peake,  D.D. 
Philoso^y  and  Religion. 

By  Hastings  Rashdall,  D.Litt.  (Oxon.),  D.C.L> 
(Durham),  F.B.A. 
The  Holy  Spirit. 

By  T.  Rees,  M.A.  (Lend.),  B.A.  (Oxon.). 
The  Religious  Ideas  of  the  Old  Testament 

By  H.  Whebler  Robinson,  M.A. 
The  Text  and  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

By  Alexander  Souter,  D.Litt. 
Christian  Thought  to  the  RefoTmatioa. 

By  Herbert  B.  Workman,  D.Litt. 
The  Theology  of  the  Epistles. 

By  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  D.Sc.,  D.D. 
The  Pharisees  and  Jesus. 

By  A.  T.  Roeert-son,  A.M.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 
The  Originality  of  the  Christian  Message. 

By  H.  R.  Mackintosh,  D.D.,  D.Phil. 


lA  critical 

mTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 

ARTHUR   S.   PEAKE 

M.A-,  D.D/^ 

nUVKSSOK  OF  BIBLICAL  EXECKSIS  IN  THS  ONIVERSITT  OF  If  ANCBBSTB 


NEW   YORK 

SHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
1922 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


TO  MY  PUPILS 

PAST  AND   PRESENT 

I  DEDICATE  THIS  VOLDMK 

IN   GRATEFUL   REMEMBRANCE   OF 

NBVBR-FAILING  KINDNESS 
AND  GENEROUS  CONSIDERATION 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/criticalintroducOOpeakiala 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 
TO  THE  SERIES 

Man  hna  no  deep<R'  or  wider  interest  than  theology  ] 
none  deeper,  for  however  much  he  may  change,  he 
nerer  loees  his  lore  of  the  many  questions  it  coyers ; 
and  none  wider,  for  under  whatever  law  he  may  live 
he  never  escapes  from  its  spacious  shade ;  nor  does 
he  ever  find  that  it  speaks  to  him  in  vain  or  uses  a 
voice  that  fails  to  reach  him.  Once  the  present 
writer  was  talking  with  a  friend  who  has  equal  fame 
as  a  statesman  and  a  man  of  letters,  and  he  said, 
"Every  day  I  live,  Politics,  which  are  affairs  of 
Man  and  Time,  interest  me  less,  while  Theology, 
whieh  is  an  affair  of  God  and  Eternity,  interests  me 
more."  As  with  him,  so  with  many,  though  the  many 
feel  Ihat  their  interest  is  in  theology  and  not  in  dogma. 
Dogma,  they  know,  is  but  a  series  of  resolutions 
framed  by  a  council  or  parliament,  which  they  do 
not  respect  any  the  more  because  the  parliament  was 
lomposed  of  ecclesiastically -minded  persons ;  while  the 
theology  which  so  interests  them  is  a  discourse  touching 
Ood,  though  the  Being  so  named  is  the  God  man  con- 
eeived  as  not  only  related  to  himself  and  his  world  bat 
alio  as  rising  ever  higher  with  the  notions  of  the  self  and 
the  world.  Wise  books,  not  in  dogma  but  in  theology, 
■1^  thartfore  be  described  as  the  supreme  need  of  out 


OENEBAL  mTBODUCnON 

dftj,  for  only  Buch  can  aai,rt  vm  from  maoh  finittolwi 
and  secure  us  in  the  full  poasession  of  a  aober  and 
•ane  reason. 

Theology  is  leas  a  single  soieace  than  an  ene^ 
clopndia  of  sciences;  indeed  all  the  sciences  which 
hare  to  do  with  man  hare  a  better  right  to  be  called 
theological  than  anthropological,  though  the  man  it 
studies  is  not  simply  an  individual  but  a  race.  Ita 
way  of  yiewing  man  is  indeed  characteristic;  from 
this  have  come  some  of  its  brighter  ideals  and  some  of 
its  darkest  dreams.  The  ideals  are  all  either  ethical 
or  social,  and  would  make  of  earth  a  heaven,  creating 
fraternity  amongst  men  and  forming  all  states  into  a 
goodly  sisterhood  ;  the  dreams  may  be  represented  by 
doctrines  which  concern  sin  on  the  one  side  and  the 
will  of  God  on  the  other.  But  even  this  will  cannot 
make  sin  luminous,  for  were  it  made  radiant  with 
grace,  it  would  cease  to  be  sin. 

These  books  then, — which  have  all  to  be  written  l^ 
men  who  have  lired  in  the  full  blaze  of  modern  light, 
— though  without  having  either  their  eyes  burned 
out  or  their  souls  scorched  into  insensibility, — are  in- 
tended to  present  Qod  in  relation  to  Man  and  Man 
in  relation  to  God.  It  is  intended  that  they  begin,  no« 
in  date  of  publication,  but  in  order  of  thought,  with  * 
Theological  Encyclopsedia  which  shall  show  the  circle 
of  sciences  co-ordinated  under  the  term  Theology, 
though  all  will  be  viewed  as  related  to  its  central  or 
main  idea.  This  relation  of  God  to  human  know- 
ledge will  then  be  looked  at  through  mind  as  a  oom- 
munion  of  Deity  with  humanity,  or  God  in  fellowship 
witlii  «*oocrete  man.    On  this  basis  the  idea  of  £eTtl»> 


OINEBAL  mTKODUOnON 

Ifon  will  be  dealt  with.     Then,  «>  far  ai  history  trnd 

philologj  are  concerned,  the  two  Sacred  Booke,  whioh 
are  here  most  significant,  will  be  viewed  as  the  seholar, 
who  is  also  a  divine,  views  them;  in  other  wcwds, 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  regarded  ai  hnman 
documents,  will  be  criticised  as  a  literature  whioh 
expresses  relations  to  both  the  present  and  the  fntore  ; 
that  is,  to  the  men  and  races  who  made  the  books, 
as  well  as  to  the  races  and  men  the  books  made. 
The  Bible  will  thtis  be  studied  in  the  Semitic  family 
which  gave  it  being,  and  also  in  the  Indo-European 
families  which  gave  to  it  the  quality  of  the  life  to 
which  they  have  attained.  But  Theology  has  to  do 
with  more  than  sacred  literature;  it  has  also  to  do 
with  the  thoughts  and  life  its  history  occasioned. 
Therefore  the  Church  has  to  be  studied  and  presented 
as  an  institution  which  God  founded  and  man  ad* 
ministers.  But  it  is  possible  to  know  this  Chnroh 
only  through  the  thoughts  it  thinks,  the  doctrines 
it  holds,  the  characters  and  the  persons  it  forms,  the 
people  who  are  its  saints  and  embody  its  ideals  oi 
sanctity,  the  acts  it  does,  which  are  its  sacraments,  and 
the  laws  it  follows  and  enforces  which  are  its  polity, 
and  the  young  it  educates  and  the  nations  it  directs 
and  controls.  These  are  the  points  to  be  presented  in 
the  volumes  which  follow,  which  are  all  to  be  occupied 
with  theology  or  the  knowledge  of  God  and  His 
w^s. 

A.if.r. 

«0" 


PREFACE 

A  rEW  words  are  necessary  to  explain  the  scope  and 
excuse  the  limitations  of  the  present  volume.  In 
view  of  the  restricted  space  at  his  disposal  and  the 
variety  and  complexity  of  the  problems,  the  author 
decided  to  concentrate  attention  exclusively  on  the 
critical  questions.  Hence  there  is  no  account  of  the 
subject-matter  of  the  books  or  outline  of  their  con- 
tents, no  biographies  of  the  writers  or  histories  of  the 
communities  addressed.  No  notice  has  been  taken  of 
historical  problems  except  so  far  as  their  consideration 
was  involved  in  the  critical  discussion.  Textual  criti- 
eism  and  the  history  of  the  canon  had  obviously  to 
be  excluded.  But  for  this  rigorous  restriction  the 
volume  would  have  largely  lost  such  value  as  it  may 
possess.  Even  as  it  is,  the  author  is  well  aware  how 
inadequate  the  treatment  must  often  seem.  He  be- 
lieves, however,  that  there  is  room  for  a  book  of  this 
size  and  scope,  and  he  has  tried  to  use  the  space 
allotted  to  him  to  the  best  advantage.  He  trusts  it 
may  serve  the  purpose  of  many  who  have  no  leisure 
to  study  a  lengthier  volume,  and  that  others  may  find 
it  a  useful  preparation  for  the  larger  works  of  Jtllicher, 
Zahn,  or  MofiEatt 


Tfii       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

At  several  points  questions  have  not  been  raised, 
or  have  been  dismissed  with  a  bare  reference,  simply 
because  no  room  could  be  found  for  an  adequate  dis- 
cussion. This  was  especially  the  case  in  the  chapter 
on  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  is  true  that  a  topic  of 
such  supreme  importance  as  a  comparison  of  Mark 
with  Q  in  the  matter  of  historical  value,  which  has 
been  forced  into  such  prominence  by  Wellhausen, 
would  in  any  case  have  been  excluded  by  the  plan  of 
the  book.  But  such  questions  as  that  of  the  strati- 
fication of  Mark  in  the  form  given  to  it  by  Loisy  and 
Bacon  among  others,  or  of  the  treatment  of  Mark  by 
Matthew  and  Luke,  and  the  principles  on  which  their 
use  of  it  proceeded,  or  of  the  reconstruction  of  Q,  it 
was  the  author's  wish  to  have  examined  at  some 
length.  This  would,  however,  have  been  done  at  the 
expense  of  curtailing  the  more  elementary  parts  of 
the  discussion,  which  he  was  unwilling  to  do  in  the 
interests  of  the  majority  of  his  readers.  A  similar 
excuse  must  be  offered  for  the  neglect  of  the  ultra- 
radical school  of  critics,  whether  as  represented  by 
scholars  like  Stock,  Loman,  and  Van  Manen,  or  in  the 
modified  form  defended  by  Voelter.  On  the  general 
principles  which  underlie  the  criticism  of  this  group, 
the  author  may  refer  to  what  he  said  in  his  Inaugural 
Lecture  at  the  University  of  Manchester.  The  recent 
work  of  Dr.  R  Scott  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  had  also 
to  be  regfretfully  passed  by.  Other  shortcomings  may 
receive  a  partial  explanation  in  the  fact  that  not  a  little 


PREFACE  b 

of  the  volume  had  to  be  dictated  in  such  interrals  as 
the  author's  state  of  health  permitted. 

The  book  is  written  from  a  scientific  standpoint 
Bj  this  it  is  not  intended  that  it  is  written  with  a  bias 
against  tradition,  but  that  it  is  written  with  a  desire 
to  be  loyal  to  the  facts.  The  author  is  conscious  of  no 
wish  to  be  in  the  critical  fashion  or  out  of  it.  That 
the  great  questions  of  faith  cannot  ultimately  be 
ignored  hardly  needs  to  be  said,  and  he  has  not  shrunk 
from  discussing  them  in  their  proper  place.  But  it  is 
desirable  that,  so  far  as  may  be,  the  critical  problems 
should  be  detached  from  them.  We  may  look  forward 
to  the  time  when  scholars  will  cease  to  label  a  criticism 
they  dislike  as  *  apologetic  *  or  *  unbelieving,*  and  shall 
also  cease  to  deserve  the  affixing  of  such  labels. 

The  author  has  finally  to  thank  the  Editor  of  the 
London  Qwirterly  Review  for  his  cordial  permission 
to  use  an  article  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  contributed 
by  him  to  that  periodical 


CONTENTS 


rAO 


nuFAoa,  •  •  •  •  •   .       •  •       Tii 

CHAPTER  I 

INTKODTTCTORT,  .  .  •  «  •  1 

CHAPTER  II 

THK   EPISTLIS  TO  THK  THESSALOKIAN8,  •  ,  .10 

CHAPTER  m 

THK  BPI8TXJI  TO  THK  OALATIAKS,  .  .  ,  •  17 

CHAPTER  IV 

THK  KFISTLBB  TO  THK  CORINTHIAITS,  .  .  «  •  31 

CHAPTER  V 

THB  BPISTLB  TO  VHX  BOXAKS,  .  •  t  •  S9 

CHAPTER  VI 

THK  KPISTLB8  OV  THK  IMPBISONMKNT,  «  «  •46 

CHAPTER  Vn 

THB  PASTORAL  BPUTLU,  .  .  ,  «  •  00 

CHAPTER  Vm 

THB  XPUTLB  TO  THB  HKBRBWa^  >  •  •  •  71 

li 


«ii        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
CHAPTER  IX 

THB   BPI8TI<K  OF  JAMBS,  .  .  •  •  •  84 

CHAPTER  X 

THB   FIRST  EPISTLE  OF   PXTSR,  .  •  ■  •  00 

CHAPTER  XI 

THB  SKCOND  EPISTLE  OF  PKTEH  AND  THE  EPISTLE  OF  JWm,  96 

CHAPTER  XII 

THE  BXN  OPTIC  GOSPELS,       .....    101 

CHAPTER  Xin 

THB  ACTS  OF  THB   APOSTLES,    .  .  •  •  .        1S5 

CHAPTER  XIV 

THB  JOHANWIWE  WRITIK08,         .  .  *  •  .        136 

CHAPTER  XV 

THB   RBVBLATIOH   OF  JTOHK,       .  .  •  •  .        182 

CHAPTER   XVI 

THB  EPISTLES  OF  JOHJT,  -  .  •  •  •        170 

CHAPTER  XVn 

THB  OOSPXIi   AOOORDIKO   TO  JOHV,         •  •  •  •        177 

KBLIOORAPHT,  •  ••••-•       229 

anua,  .  -  •  •  «  ,  .     117 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

For  the  sake  of  convenience  it  is  customary  to  divide  the 
field  of  New  Testament  scholarship  into  various  depart- 
ments in  which  the  critical,  historical,  exegetical  and 
theological  problems  presented  by  the  literature  are 
investigated.  The  division,  however,  must  not  blind  us  to 
the  unity  of  the  field  and  the  close  interrelation  of  its 
several  parts.  The  conclusion  we  reach  in  one  section 
inevitably  reacts  on  our  study  of  another.  It  might  seem 
as  if  a  passage  bore  the  same  interpretation  whatever  its 
date  and  whoever  its  author.  But  this  is  by  no  means  the 
case,  since  the  same  expressions  may  mean  different  things 
on  different  Hps  or  when  addressed  to  varying  conditions. 
The  ultimate  aim  of  the  New  Testament  student  is  to 
understand  the  religious  and  theological  development  which 
is  reflected  in  the  documents.  But  to  do  this  he  must  re- 
construct the  movement  of  external  events  and  within  this 
environment  trace  the  career  of  the  Founder  and  the 
growth  of  the  primitive  Church.  He  must,  in  other  words, 
pursue  the  study  of  New  Testament  history.  Then  he 
must  minutely  examine  the  documents  in  detail ;  that  is,  he 
must  devote  himself  to  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament. 
Moreover,  he  cannot  master  the  various  types  of  doctrine 
within  ihe  literatuie  without  confronting  the  problems  of 

A 


2         INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oB. 

aathorship,  nor  can  he  trace  the  chronological  developmeni 
of  thought  without  settling  the  relative  date  of  his  docu- 
ments. These  problems  of  date  and  authorship  are  the 
special  concern  of  New  Testament  Introduction.  And  Just 
as  New  Testament  Theology  depends  for  its  results  to  no 
little  extent  on  the  sister  sciences,  so  it  might  be  shown  that 
each  of  these  is  dependent  upon  the  rest.  Nevertheless, 
while  we  cannot  forget  this  fact  of  interdependence  and  the 
necessity  that  all  should  move  forward  together,  it  is  essen- 
tial that  we  should  isolate  each  for  special  study,  and  in  this 
volume  we  are  concerned  with  the  problems  of  New  Testa- 
ment criticism.  This  science  is  divided  into  general  and 
special  introduction.  The  former  of  these  embraces 
Textual  criticism  and  the  history  of  the  Canon,  the 
latter  examines  each  book  in  turn  with  a  view  to  the 
determination  of  its  authorship,  its  structure,  its  date,  its 
local  destination  and  kindred  problems.  In  the  present 
volume  the  Hmits  of  space  compel  us  to  restrict  ourselves 
to  special  introduction. 

In  its  modem  form  this  science  was  pre-eminently  the 
creation  of  F.  C.  Baur  and  the  Tubingen  school.^    Not  of 

1  Baur  published  what  proved  to  be  the  manifesto  of  the  new  critical 
school  in  1831.  This  was  an  article  on  the  Christ-party  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth.  Hilgenfeld  called  it  '  the  ancestral  stronghold  of  onr  whole  criti- 
cism,' a  designation  which  drew  from  Meyer  the  tart  reply  that  like  manj 
another  ancestral  stronghold  it  was  in  ruins.  The  article  was  followed  by 
a  book  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles  in  1835  and  by  an  Essay  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  in  1836.  It  was  not  till  1845  that  his  great  work  on  Paul  appeared. 
Of  his  other  works  we  may  mention  simply  that  on  the  Gospels,  and  his 
Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries  containing  the  final  statement  of 
his  critical  reconstruction  of  the  history.  His  most  eminent  followers  were 
Zeller  and  Schwegler  (whose  Post-Apostolic  Age  calls  for  special  mention), 
and  at  a  somewhat  later  time  Hilgenfeld,  who  in  some  respects  retreated 
from  the  master's  position.  Hilgenfeld  was  a  voluminous  writer :  his  views 
on  New  Testament  criticism  may  be  seen  most  conveniently  in  his  New 
Testament  Introduction  published  in  1875,  though  he  wrote  much  on  later 
developments  in  the  inteiTal  of  thirty  years  between  its  publication  and  hii 
death.  Holsten  was  more  faithful  to  the  rigour  of  Baur  s  criticism,  but  hi« 
most  conspicuous  service  was  rendered  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Pauline 
theology.  Pfleiderer  also  was  much  more  successful  in  his  treatment  ol 
ldea.s  than  of  critical  problems,  and  he  showed  a  singularly  open  mind  to  the 
last,  moving  from  his  earlier  positions  alike  in  the  philosophy  of  religion,  is 
iflticism.  and  %  the  interpretation  of  the  N«w  Testament. 


I.J  INTKODUCTOBT  1 

ooarse  that  several  of  the  topics  discussed  in  it  had  not 
already  been  treated  with  skill  and  learning  by  earlier 
scholars,  but  they  had  dealt  with  them  rather  as  isolated 
questions,  whereas  Baur  and  the  brilliant  band  of  scholars 
he  gathered  about  him  dealt  with  them  as  a  conneoted 
whole,  and  also  brought  the  Uterature  into  most  intimate 
relation  to  the  whole  development  of  the  primitive  Church. 
In  philosophy  Baur  was  a  Hegelian,  and  he  reconstructed 
the  history  of  primitive  Christianity  in  accordance  with  the 
formula  that  thought  moves  through  thesis  and  antithesis 
to  synthesis.  In  other  words  a  position  is  laid  down  which 
calls  forth  a  contradiction.  These  are  gradually  drawn 
together  and  at  last  merged  in  a  higher  unity.  Applying 
this  formula  to  the  history  of  primitive  Christianity,  Baur 
conceived  the  whole  development  to  exhibit  the  interplay 
of  two  forces,  Jewish  Christianity  on  the  one  side  and 
Paulinism  on  the  other,  which  ultimately,  by  the  drawing 
together  of  the  opposing  parties,  were  reconciled  in  the 
Catholic  Church  of  the  second  century,  while  the  repre- 
sentativefl  of  the  original  tendencies,  the  Ebionites  on  the 
one  hand  and  Marcion  on  the  other,  stood  outside  the 
compromise  and  were  consequently  branded  as  heretacs. 
Naturally,  however  much  this  construction  may  have  been 
suggested  by  philosophical  principles,  it  was  not  defended 
simply  as  an  intuition.  Facts  and  divination  were  sup- 
posed to  point  in  the  same  way,  though  divination  guided 
the  search  for  facts.  The  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  to 
the  Corinthians  in  particular  were  believed  to  exhibit  a 
sharp  antagonism  between  the  original  apostles  and  Paul, 
and  this  was  found  also  in  the  Apocalypse  in  which  the 
apostle  John  was  presumed  to  make  a  violent  attack  upon 
the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  The  Clementine  Homilies  and 
Elecognitions  were  thought  to  prove  the  bitter  hostility  of 
the  primitive  apostles  to  Paul,  who  was  believed  to  be  in- 
tended by  Simon  Msigus,  the  opponent  of  Simon  Peter. 
The  neglect  of  Paul  during  the  greater  part  of  the  second 


«         INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

century  was  imagined  to  point  in  the  same  direction  and 
be  a  survival  of  the  Jewish  Christian  antagonism  to  him. 

The  New  Testament  documents  had  to  be  dated  by  the 
consideration  of  the  place  they  filled  in  the  movement  from 
antagonism  to  unity.  Earlier  books  showed  the  hostility 
of  the  parties  at  its  greatest,  and  the  more  conciliatory  the 
tendency  they  displayed  the  later  it  was  necessary  to  place 
them.  Naturally  this  involved  a  very  radical  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament.  Only  five  books  were  left  by  Baur  to 
the  authors  whose  names  they  bear,  namely  :  Galatians, 
Corinthians  and  Romans  i.-xiv.  to  Paul,  and  the  Apocalypse 
to  the  apostle  John.  Even  within  the  school  this  revolu- 
tionary attitude  provoked  dissent,  and  in  addition  to  Baur's 
four  Hilgenfeld  recognised  the  genuineness  of  Rom.xv.,xvi., 
1  Thessalonians,  Philippians  and  Philemon.  The  most 
serious  blow  was  struck  at  the  school  by  the  pubUcation  in 
1857  of  the  second  edition  of  Ritschl's  Entstehung  der 
AltkathoUschen  Kirche ;  and  although  it  cannot  be  said  that 
New  Testament  criticism  has  returned  to  traditional  views 
there  has  been  a  retreat  all  along  the  line  from  tiie  positions 
defended  by  Baur.  It  will  be  instructive  to  linger  a  little 
on  the  causes  which  led  to  the  collapse  of  the  Tubingen 
theory.  It  was  certainly  a  praiseworthy  thing  to  recognise 
that  the  origin  of  the  Catholic  Church  was  a  problem  which 
had  to  be  explained.  It  was  also  commendable  to  treat  the 
New  Testament  literature  in  close  connexion  with  the 
development  of  the  Church  and  to  overcome  the  isolation 
which  had  characterised  earlier  criticism.  Moreover,  thbre 
was  a  conflict  in  the  early  Church,  and  it  was  well  to  force 
the  fact  into  prominence.  But  the  Tiibingen  reconstruc- 
tion was  too  much  dominated  by  theory  to  which  the  facts 
had  to  bend.  While  reasons  were  assigned  for  the  positions 
adopted,  these  were  often  of  a  flimsy  character  such  as  would 
have  influenced  no  one  unless  he  had  a  theory  to  support. 
It  was  also  a  radical  vice  of  method  that  literary  was  too 
much  controlled  by  historical  criticism. 


I.J  INTRODUCTORY  • 

Apart  from  these  general  considerations,  the  theory  has 
broken  down  in  detail  and  that  at  vital  points.  It  is 
not  the  fact  that  the  most  neutral  documents  were  the 
latest.  Baur  was  forced  to  regard  Mark  as  the  latest 
of  the  Synoptists,  since  it  was  the  most  colourless  in 
regard  to  the  conflict  which  rent  the  early  Church.  One 
of  the  surest  and  most  generally  accepted  results  of  Synoptic 
criticism  is  that  Mark  is  the  earliest  Gospel.  Similarly  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  was  regarded  as  a  Catholicised  version  of  the 
Gospel  of  Marcion,  but  it  is  now  universally  recognised 
that  the  latter  was  a  mutilated  edition  of  the  former.  The 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  supposed  to  be  a  history  of  the 
ApostoUc  Age  written  from  the  Catholic  standpoint,  in 
which  the  original  bitter  antagonism  was  suppressed  and  a 
picture  of  almost  unbroken  harmony  was  substituted.  It 
is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  elaborate  and  ingenious 
attempts  to  show  that  the  writer  instituted  a  far-reaching 
parallelism  between  Peter  and  Paul  in  order  to  assimilate 
them  to  each  other,  has  broken  down,  and  whatever  the 
tendency  of  the  work  may  have  been,  it  was  not  that  which 
Baur  discovered  in  it.  Among  those  who  reject  the  apos- 
toUc  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  there  is  a  very  large 
agreement  that  it  should  be  dated  roughly  speaking  half 
a  century  earUer  than  the  tune  to  which  Baur  assigned  it. 

Further,  it  is  clear  from  an  impartial  study  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles  which  Baur  recognised  as  genuine  that  they 
will  not  bear  the  weight  which  he  put  upon  them.  They 
testify  to  a  much  closer  agreement  between  Paul  and  the 
'  pillar  apostles '  (Gal.  ii.  9)  than  Baur  admitted.  The 
importance  attached  to  the  Clementine  literature  is  now 
seen  to  have  been  wholly  exaggerated  and  Simon  Magus  is 
usually  regarded  as  a  historical  character,  not  as  a  mere 
Uterary  double  of  Paul,  though  it  can  hardly  be  doubted 
that  Paul  is  attacked  in  the  guise  of  Simon.  The  character 
of  the  post-apostolic  period  in  which  Baur  placed  so  many 
New  Testament  writings  is,  so  far  as  we  know  it,  thoroughly 


d  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      Tch. 

commonplace  and  destitute  of  originality,  and  it  would  b« 
sui-prising  if  the  creative  age  of  the  Church  produced  so  little 
literature,  while  the  period  in  which  the  initial  impulse  had 
been  largely  exhausted  should  be  so  rich  in  pseudonymous 
writings  of  the  first  rank.  The  fuller  understanding  of 
Judaism  has  shown  that  it  was  far  more  complex  than  was 
allowed  for  by  Baur,  and  that  the  factors  which  went  to 
create  both  the  New  Testament  literature  and  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  second  century  were  much  more  numerous 
The  neglect  of  Paul  in  the  second  century  was  due  to  no 
antagonism  to  the  apostle  but  simply  to  inability  on  the  part 
of  Gentile  Christians,  who  came  to  the  Gospel  with  such 
very  different  presuppositions  and  modes  of  thought,  to 
understand  him.  The  controversy  with  the  Jewish 
Christians  had  long  ceased  to  have  any  living  interest  for 
the  Church,  and  the  declension  from  the  evangehcal  position 
of  Paul  to  the  moralism  of  the  ApostoUc  Fathers  was  not  the 
triumph  of  Jewish  legalism  but  only  one  example  of  the  rule 
that  a  great  spiritual  movement  quickly  sinks  in  the  second 
generation  to  the  conventional  level  as  the  original  enthusi- 
asm dies  down.  The  Tiibingen  school  also  gave  greater 
prominence  to  Paul  than  to  Jesus,  as  was  not  unnatural  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  less  easily  fitted  into  the 
Tiibingen  formula  and  the  Gospels  were  regarded  rather  as 
landmarks  in  the  controversy  than  as  historical  sources. 
But  no  theory  can  be  permanent  which  fails  to  see  in 
Jesus  the  most  powerful  factor  in  the  creation  and  develop- 
ment of  the  early  Church. 

For  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  the  new  theory  would  secure 
ultimate  victory.  Several  of  the  foremost  New  Testament 
scholars,  however,  never  accepted  it,  and  in  its  main  lines 
it  has  been  long  ago  abandoned.  At  the  same  time  Baur's 
work  was  epoch-making  in  that  he  largely  set  the  problems 
for  New  Testament  science,  and  although  his  own  solution 
had  a  far  narrower  range  than  he  imagined,  it  possessed  an 
element  of  truth,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  overestimate  the 


l)  INTBODUCTOEY  7 

•ervioe  of  those  who  are  the  first  to  state  the  problems 
which  have  to  be  investigated.  Later  developments  have 
shown  a  much  closer  approximation  to  traditional  views  of 
authorship,  though  the  extent  of  this  return  to  tradition  is 
often  exaggerated.  It  is  most  marked  in  the  case  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  With  the  wider  knowledge  of  the 
conditions  it  has  become  clear  that  Baur's  criteria  of  date 
and  authorship  were  altogether  too  narrow  and  the  possi- 
bilities of  the  first  century  much  larger  than  he  beUeved. 

Within  the  limits  of  our  space  it  is  not  desirable  to  pursue 
the  history  further,  since  the  detailed  discussion  of  the 
literature  will  bring  the  later  developments  before  us.  It 
may  be  well,  however,  to  mention  here  some  of  the  criteria 
for  the  solution  of  the  critical  problems  presented  by  the 
literature.  We  have  to  recognise  fiirst  that  the  historical 
books  of  the  New  Testament  did  not  owe  their  origin  simply 
to  a  scientific  interest  such  as  animates  a  modem  historian. 
It  is  probable  that  the  purely  historical  interest  of  New 
Testament  writers  is  underrated  by  some  scholars  to-day, 
but  it  is  clear  that  it  was  no  mere  concern  to  reproduce  the 
past  which  impelled  them  to  write.  The  present  and  the 
future  were  for  them  the  matters  of  most  urgent  concern. 
We  thus  gain  no  Uttle  insight  into  the  conditions  with  which 
the  authors  were  confronted  even  from  the  history  of  the 
life  of  Christ  or  of  the  primitive  Church.  Points  which  they 
selected  for  mention  were  often  those  which  had  the  most 
immediate  bearing  on  contemporary  conditions.  Some 
think  that  we  have  to  do  here  not  simply  with  selection  but 
also  with  creation ;  for  example,  sayings  were  put  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus  which  were  reaUy  the  outcome  of  the 
Church's  later  necessities.  We  may  refuse  to  give  anythiug 
like  the  scope  to  this  principle  which  it  at  times  receives  and 
yet  recognise  that  this  motive  determined  the  choice  of  many 
incidents  and  sayings.  Thus  the  address  of  Jesus  to  the 
twelve  or  to  the  seventy  as  to  the  methods  of  their  mission 
supplied  useful  directions  for  the  Church's  later  propa- 


8         INTBODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

ganda.  The  necessity  of  making  good  the  case  for  the 
Gospel  both  against  Jews  and  pagans  has  exercised  con- 
siderable influence  on  the  selection  of  material.  The 
relations  of  Christianity  with  the  Roman  Empire  are  re- 
flected not  only  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles, 
and  the  Apocalypse,  but  even  in  the  Gospels.  This 
apologetic  motive  is  of  great  value  in  determining  date,  but 
certain  cautions  have  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  applying  it. 
Our  information  as  to  external  conditions  is  still  far  too 
uncertain  to  supply  us  with  a  reliable  series  of  objective 
tests.  Thus  very  varied  opinions  are  still  held  as  to  the 
period  when  Christianity  was  definitely  recognised  by  the 
State  as  an  illicit  religion.  In  apocalyptic  writings  we 
have  also  to  beware  of  seeking  for  historical  allusions  where 
the  author  is  simply  employing  very  ancient  eschatological 
material. 

In  view  of  the  strained  expectation  with  which  the 
primitive  Christians  looked  forward  to  the  Second  Coming 
we  cannot  anticipate  that  a  concern  for  narrating  the 
Gospel  history  would  arise  till  a  comparatively  late  period. 
The  need  for  preserving  reminiscences  of  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  would  not  be  felt  till  a  considerable  time  had  elapsed, 
though  in  the  Gentile  mission  the  demand  may  well  have 
arisen  earlier  than  we  should  anticipate,  since  there  would 
be  very  few  who  could  give  first-hand  oral  information. 
It  is  very  difficult  to  beUeve  that  a  collection  of  Christ's 
sayings  was  compiled  during  His  lifetime,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  His  disciples  did  not  anticipate  His  speedy  and  tragic 
removal.  While  the  bridegroom  was  still  with  them  they 
lived  in  Joyous  freedom  from  anxiety  as  to  the  future,  and 
for  many  years  after  His  departure  from  earth  they  looked 
on  their  life  as  a  purely  provisional  and  interim  condition 
which  might  at  any  moment  be  brought  to  a  splendid  close. 
The  Epistles  were  naturally  an  earlier  form  of  literature 
than  the  Gospels,  since  they  were  elicited  by  the  need  of 
dealing  with  immediate  necessities. 


I.]  INTRODUCTORY  t 

The  best  order  to  be  pursued  in  the  treatment  of  the 
subject  is  not  quite  easy  to  determine.  It  is  probably  best 
to  begin  with  the  Pauline  Epistles,  since  it  is  desirable  as  far 
as  possible  to  start  with  the  earliest  literature  which  is  also 
contemporary  with  the  events  with  which  it  deals.  Simi- 
larly it  is  best  to  keep  the  Johannine  literature  together 
and  reserve  it  for  the  close.  The  remaining  Epistles  natu- 
rally follow  the  Pauline ;  the  Synoptists  and  Acts  praoede 
the  Johannine  writings. 


1.0       IKTHODUCTION  tO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      lea. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS 

There  is  now  a  general  consensus  of  critical  opinion  io 
favour  of  the  genuineness  of  1  Thessalonians.  The  external 
evidence  is  good.  Irenaeus  is  the  first  to  name  it,  and  it  is 
quoted  without  question  as  Paul's  from  that  time  onwards. 
It  IB  found  in  the  Syriac  and  Old  Latin  versions  and  is 
included  among  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  the  Muratorian 
Canon.  It  was  also  placed  by  Marcion  in  his  Canon  of 
Christian  writings  which  included  a  mutUated  Gospel  of 
Luke  and  ten  Pauline  Epistles  (the  Pastoral  Epistles  being 
excluded).  The  internal  evidence  is  decisive.  No  one 
writing  in  Paul's  name  after  his  death  would  have  made 
him  anticipate  that  the  Second  Coming  would  take  place 
while  he  was  still  alive,  siuce  he  would  know  that  this 
anticipation  of  survival  till  the  Parousia  had  been  belied 
by  the  event.  The  diJB&culty  created  with  reference  to  the 
destiny  of  those  members  of  the  Church  who  had  died  before 
the  Second  Coming  points  to  a  very  early  stage  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Thessalonian  Church.  The  question  must  have 
been  obsolete  long  before  Paul's  death.  Added  to  this  we 
can  detect  no  adequate  motive  why  the  Epistle  should 
have  been  written  in  Paul's  name.  It  serves  no  special 
purpose  for  which  we  can  naturally  think  of  a  writer  as 
invoking  his  authority.  The  organisation  is  in  a  rudi- 
mentary stage ;  we  meet  with  no  technical  titles  for  the 
officials.  The  Epistle  must  have  been  written  in  Paul's 
lifetime,  and  it  may  therefore  be  taken  for  granted  that  it 
written  by  Paul  himself. 


I1.J         THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  11 

There  are  no  arguments  of  weight  on  the  other  side, 
unless  we  insist  that  the  four  practically  unquestioned 
Epistles  must  be  taken  as  a  standard  to  which  everything 
must  conform.  But  there  was  no  Judaising  agitation  in 
Thessalonica,  so  that  the  relation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Law 
called  for  no  discussion.  Indeed  it  would  have  been 
strange  had  such  an  agitation  touched  the  Church  so  early. 
It  is  not  quite  easy  to  harmonise  the  references  in  the 
Epistle  with  the  story  related  in  the  Acts,  but  they  are  not 
contradictory,  and  even  if  they  were  this  would  be  no 
argument  against  the  Epistle's  genuineness.  Several  have 
thought  that  ii.  16  implies  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
had  already  taken  place.  If  this  were  correct  it  would  be 
simpler  to  consider  this  verse  as  an  interpolation  wholly  or 
in  part.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  that  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  even  as  anticipated,  for 
Paul  saw  a  Divine  judgment  in  the  hardening  of  the  Jews 
against  Christianity;  and  if  there  were,  such  an  anticipation 
would  not  be  surprising  in  one  who  was  acquainted  with 
Christ's  prediction  and  had  such  experience  of  the  Jews' 
obstinate  antagonism  to  the  Gospel.  There  is  accordingly 
no  need  to  detect  a  later  hand  in  ii.  16,  still  less  on  ^lis 
slender  basis  to  place  the  whole  Epistle  after  a.d.  70. 

The  date  and  place  of  writing  can  be  fixed  within  very 
naxrow  limits.  It  is  clear  from  a  comparison  of  the  Epistle 
with  the  Acts  that  it  was  written  shortly  after  the  apostle 
had  left  Thessalonica.  He  had  reached  Athens  (iii.  1),  had 
sent  Timothy  back  to  Thessalonica  from  that  city  (iii.  2), 
and  had  been  rejoined  by  him  (iii.  6),  and  this,  as  we  learn 
from  Acts  zviii.  5,  was  not  at  Athens  but  at  Corinth.  We 
must  assume,  however,  that  an  interval  of  several  months 
had  elapsed  between  the  apostle's  departure  from  Thessa- 
lonica and  the  despatch  of  this  letter.  We  must  allow  time 
for  Paul's  journey  to  Athens  and  the  subsequent  arrival  of 
Silas  and  Timothy,  for  Paul's  work  in  Athens  and  later  in 
Corinth,  which  had  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  Chnrchec 


18       INTBODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [on 

in  Achaia.  The  rhetorical  statement  that  the  news  of  the 
Thessalonians'  acceptance  of  the  Gospel  had  gone  into 
every  place  and  the  report  of  it  had  reached  Paul  must  have 
some  specific  reference,  and  may  point  to  news  Paul  had 
reeeived  from  the  Churches  in  Galatia,  which  may  have 
been  occasioned  by  a  letter  sent  to  them  by  Timothy. 
The  deaths  which  had  occurred  in  the  numerically  small 
congregation  also  point  in  the  same  direction.  We  can 
scarcely  allow  less  than  six  months  for  the  interval;  perhaps 
it  should  be  more. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  was  of  course 
rejected  by  the  Tubingen  school,  but  unlike  the  First  Epistle 
it  is  still  rejected  by  many  scholars.  The  most  obvious 
ground  of  objection  is  that  presented  by  the  eschatological 
section  (ii.  1-12).  It  would  be  out  of  the  question  to  rescue 
the  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  by  sacrificing  this  section 
as  a  later  interpolation.  The  Epistle  was  written  for  the 
sake  of  that  paragraph;  remove  it  and  we  caimot  understand 
what  object  could  be  served  by  the  composition  of  the  rest. 
If  ii.  1-12  is  not  the  work  of  Paul  the  authenticity  of  the 
whole  must  be  surrendered.  The  author  seems  to  contra- 
dict the  view  as  to  the  Second  Coming  expressed  in  the 
First  Epistle.  In  1  Thessalonians  Paul  appears  to  anticipate 
that  the  Second  Coming  is  imminent  and  will  be  sudden, 
and  expects  that  some  at  least  of  his  readers  and  himself  will 
survive  till  it  takes  place.  In  the  Second  Epistle  he  tells 
them  that  they  must  not  be  led  to  think  that  it  is  at  hand, 
especially  mentioning  that  such  an  opinion  might  be 
derived  from  a  letter  professing  to  come  from  himself. 
A  development  of  apostasy  is  first  to  take  place,  and  the  man 
of  lawlessness  is  to  be  revealed  and  then  slain  on  the 
appearance  of  Christ.  The  mention  in  ii.  2  of  a  letter  which 
might  be  circulated  in  Paul's  name  combined  with  the  at- 
testation of  authenticity  at  the  close  (iii.  17)  has  not 
wmaturally  raised  the  suspicion  that  the  author  wished  to 


IL]         THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  13 

substitute  his  own  composition  for  1  Thessalonians  with 
its  uncongenial  eschatology.  This  is  supported  by  the 
extraordinary  similarity  between  the  two  Epistles.  More- 
over, the  circulation  of  a  forged  letter  during  Paul's  lifetime 
and  while  he  was  within  easy  reach  is  highly  improbable. 
A  further  contradiction  with  1  Thessalonians  is  found  ia  the 
anticipation  of  suddenness  in  the  earlier  Epistle  as  con- 
trasted with  the  account  given  in  the  Second  Epistle  of 
the  events  which  were  to  lead  up  to  it. 

It  is  possible,  however,  to  put  the  relations  between  the 
two  Epistles  in  a  reasonable  light  without  recourse  to  the 
hypothesis  of  non-authenticity.  While  Paul  in  the  First 
Epistle  anticipates  that  the  Second  Coming  will  take  place 
in  his  own  lifetime,  he  does  not  intend  to  convey  the  opinion 
that  it  will  take  place  immediately.  Some  of  the  Thessa- 
lonians, however,  probably  through  misunderstanding  of 
his  language,  imagined  that  the  Second  Advent  was  immin- 
ent. To  correct  the  restlessness  and  disorder  which  ensued, 
Paul  wrote  the  Second  Epistle  to  interpret  the  language 
of  the  First,  warning  them  against  forgeries  and  explaining 
that  the  Parousia  cannot  be  imminent  inasmuch  as  a 
certain  development  which  still  hes  in  the  future  is  tc 
take  place  before  it.  Similarly  he  anticipates  in  1  Cor.  xv. 
the  return  of  Christ  in  his  lifetime,  but  in  Romans  xi.  25, 
26  he  says  that  the  Gospel  will  fulfil  its  function  among  the 
Gentiles  and  aU  Israel  will  be  saved  before  it  takes  place. 
And  while  in  the  eschatological  discourse  in  the  Gospels 
Christ  emphasises  the  suddenness  of  the  Second  Coming,  He 
nevertheless  points  out  several  signs  of  the  end.  It  is  one 
of  our  commonest  experiences  that  a  long-anticipated  event 
happens  suddenly  at  the  last.  Besides,  it  is  easy  to 
exaggerate  here.  It  is  upon  the  unwatchful  that  the  Day 
of  the  Lord  steals  as  a  thief  in  the  night,  not  on  the  sons  of 
the  light  who  are  wakeful  and  sober  (1  Thess.  v.  2-6).  And 
while  it  is  quite  improbable  that  a  forged  letter  had  been 
circulated  at  Thessalonica,  one  can  easily  see  how  Paul, 


14       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

conscious  that  his  earlier  letter  gave  no  real  justification  for 
the  disorder  rn  the  Church,  was  driven  to  suspect  that  the 
Thessalonians  had  been  misled  by  a  letter  which  had  been 
circulated  falsely  in  his  name.  In  fact  the  exhortation  to 
constant  watchfulness  in  the  First  Epistle  might  well  have 
been  interpreted  as  a  call  to  forsake  the  homeHer  duties  of 
everyday  life. 

Apart  from  its  supposed  inconsistency  with  1  Thessa- 
lonians, the  section  itself  has  naturally  created  difficulties. 
The  ideas  have  no  parallel  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  to 
many  they  seem  to  bear  the  stamp  of  a  later  time.  Thus 
Hilgenfeld  explained  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  as  Gnosti- 
cism, but  there  is  no  trace  of  Gnosticism  in  this  Epistle. 
Kern  put  forward  the  ingenious  view  that  the  Epistle  was 
composed  between  68  and  70,  when  Nero  was  supposed 
to  be  in  hiding,  restrained  from  entering  on  his  career  as 
Antichrist  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  especially 
by  Vespasian,  who  was  at  the  time  besieging  Jerusalem. 
The  apostasy  he  took  to  be  the  outbreak  of  wickedness  on 
the  part  of  the  Jews  during  the  siege.  But  this  is  open  to 
the  serious  objection  that  a  spurious  Epistle  should  be 
accepted  as  genuine  within  so  brief  a  period  after  Paul's 
death.  If  to  escape  this  difficulty  it  be  placed  in  the  first 
decade  of  the  second  century,  as  by  some  scholars,  then  the 
still  more  formidable  objection  arises  that  the  writer  refers 
to  the  man  of  lawlessness  as  seated  in  the  temple  without 
betraying  any  knowledge  that  the  temple  had  been  long 
ago  destroyed,  to  say  nothing  of  the  difficulty  of  suggesting 
a  plausible  reason  for  the  composition  of  the  Epistle  at  that 
date.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  difficulty  in  account- 
ing for  the  anticipations  expressed  by  Paul.  Quite  possibly, 
as  Bousset  and  others  have  argued,  the  writer  is  borrowing 
from  a  very  ancient  Antichrist  legend  which  would  amply 
account  for  the  presence  of  those  features  in  the  description 
which  seem  to  some  writers  to  demand  a  post-Pauline  date. 
But  even  if  this  were  not  the  case,  the  conditions  from  th» 
time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  onwards  would  be  quite 


ih]        THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  THESSALONIANS  18 

adequate.  The  description  can  be  readily  understood  from 
the  conditions  of  Paul's  own  age.  It  is  probably  a  mistake 
to  look  for  the  mystery  of  lawlessness  or  its  personal  in- 
carnation as  springing  out  of  Judaism,  the  antagonism  to 
the  Gospel  displayed  by  the  Jews  being  quite  inadequate 
to  account  for  the  language  Paul  uses  in  this  iection.  From 
monotheists  and  legalists  so  fanatical  he  would  expect  no 
such  blasphemous  outburst  of  antitheism  and  lawlessness. 
It  is  to  heathenism  rather  than  to  those  who  '  have  a  xeai 
for  God  though  not  according  to  knowledge,'  that  we  must 
look.  There  is  nothing  that  so  closely  corresponds  to  Paul's 
description  as  the  deification  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  which 
had  gone  to  insane  lengths  with  Caligula.  Paul's  langua.ge 
especially  reminds  us  of  Caligula's  orders  to  have  his  statue 
placed  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  mystery  of  law- 
lessness was  already  at  work  in  Paul's  time,  held  in  check  for 
a  time  by  Claudius  the  reigning  Emperor,  but  destined  on 
his  removal  to  receive  its  final  consummation  in  a  monster 
of  impiety  who  would  be  slain  by  Christ  at  the  Second 
Coming.  It  was  not  imnatural  that  concurrently  with  this 
there  should  be  a  great  apostasy  within  the  Christian 
Church  itself,  such  as  is  also  predicted  in  the  Gospels  It 
is  therefore  quite  unnecessary  to  descend  below  the  reign  of 
Claudius  for  the  date.  Nor  is  there  anything  surprising  in 
its  isolation  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  It  is  only  by  accident 
that  we  hear  of  it  at  all.  Paul  merely  repeats  what  he  had 
already  told  his  readers,  and  does  so  simply  to  disabuse 
them  of  anticipations  which  had  a  disastrous  moral  result. 
Since  the  subject  was  one  that  touched  the  future  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  he  would  shrink  from  committing  his 
views  to  writing  which  might  get  into  the  wrong  hands. 
He  does  so  here  only  of  necessity  and  in  veiled  words. 

In  the  Judgment  of  some  scholars  a  still  more  serious 
difficulty  is  created  by  the  strilcing  likeness  of  the  Second 
Epistle  to  the  First.  Hausrath  in  fact  argued  that  the 
only  genuine  part  cf  the  letter  was  the  eschatological 
passage.    It  is  certainly  strange  that  after  the  inteival 


16       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ob. 

which  separated  the  two  Epistiee  Paul  should  repeat 
himself  to  such  a  degree  as  he  does  in  2  Thessalonians. 
To  some  extent  we  may  account  for  this  by  the  similarity 
of  the  conditions,  and  especially  by  the  probabiHty  that 
Paul,  in  writing  to  correct  a  false  opinion  on  a  subject  he 
had  already  dealt  with,  would  call  to  mind  the  conditions 
in  which  his  former  letter  had  been  written  and  what  he  had 
said  in  it.  These  considerations  may  perhaps  not  entirely 
remove  the  difficulty.  But  the  theory  of  spuriousness  is 
beset  with  difficulties  greater  still,  for  criticism  has  not 
simply  to  raise  objections  to  the  traditional  authorship  but 
to  suggest  a  reason  for  the  composition  of  a  spurious  letter. 
Two  such  suggestions  have  been  made.  One  is  that  it  was 
the  author's  intention  to  replace  the  First  Epistle,  whose 
eschatology  had  been  falsified,  by  the  Second.  The  other 
is  that  the  Epistle  was  not  designed  to  replace  but  to  explain 
the  former  in  harmony  with  the  writer's  eschatological 
views.  Against  the  latter  theory  we  must  urge  that  a  much 
shorter  letter  would  have  been  all  that  was  necessary. 
The  former  theory  is  not  exposed  to  this  weakness  and 
really  accoimts  for  the  repetition  of  so  much  in  the  First 
Epistle,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  believe  that  a  project  of  this 
kind  should  be  contemplated.  How  could  a  writer  seri- 
ously hope,  at  the  date  to  which  the  Epistle  is  assigned,  to 
foist  a  hitherto  unheard-of  composition  upon  the  Church, 
especially  the  Church  at  Thessalonica  ?  And  this  difficulty 
shrinks  into  insignificance  by  the  side  of  that  attached  to  the 
expectation  that  he  would  get  the  Church  to  put  the  First 
Epistle  in  the  wastepaper  basket  and  adopt  the  spurious 
Epistle  in  its  place.  We  should  also  have  expected  a  later 
writer  to  draw  to  some  extent  on  other  Pauline  Epistles  and 
introduce  some  of  the  more  distinctively  Pauline  expressiona 
and  ideas  in  order  to  stamp  it  more  directly  as  Paul's.  It 
seems,  therefore,  to  be  still  the  simplest  view  that  the 
Epistle  is  genuine.  A  brief  period  only  separated  it  from 
the  First  Epistle,  and  it  also  was  written  from  Corinth. 


m.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIAN3  17 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS 

It  us  clear  from  the  Epistle  itself  that  theChurches  addressed 
were  founded  at  the  same  time  and  had  the  same  history 
(iv.  13-15),  so  that  we  cannot  identify  them  with  a  combina- 
tion of  Churches  founded  on  different  occasions.  The  term 
Galatia  is  used  both  in  a  wider  and  in  a  narrower  sense. 
The  latter  was  the  original  sense,  according  to  which  the 
term  indicated  a  district  where  there  had  been  a  settlement 
of  Gauls  who  had  invaded  the  country  in  the  third  century 
B.C.  It  is  in  this  region  that,  according  to  the  majority  of 
scholars,  the  Churches  addressed  in  this  Epistle  are  to  be 
sought.  For  convenience  of  reference  this  view  is  now 
commonly  designated  the  North  Galatian  theory.  But  the 
term,  as  is  now  universally  admitted,  was  also  used  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  Roman  province  of  Galatia,  which  in- 
cluded not  only  Galatia  proper,  but  also  parts  of  Phrygia, 
Lycaonia,  and  Pisidia.  In  this  province  Pisidian  Antioch, 
Iconium,  Derbe,  and  Lystra  were  all  included,  so  that  it  has 
been  held  by  scholars  of  the  first  rank,  such  as  Renan, 
Weiasacker,  Hausrath,  Pfleiderer  and  Zahn,  that  the 
Epistles  were  addressed  to  these  Churches,  which  had  been 
founded  by  Paul  on  his  so-called  First  Missionary  Journey. 
This  South  Galatian  theory  has  been  energetically  advo- 
cated by  Ramsay  with  conspicuous  ability,  learning  and 
resourcefulness,  and  is  now  accepted  by  a  large  number  of 
scholars,  though  still  rejected  by  Schiirer,  Chase,  Wendt, 
Schmiedel,  Jiilicher,  Steinmann  and  others.  If  it  can  be 
•ut^tantiated  we  know  something  of  the  origin  of  these 

B 


18        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [c» 

Churches,  and  against  this  background  the  Epistle  stands 
out  much  more  clearly.  Since  no  Churches  were  founded  in 
North  Galatia  on  this  journey  we  must,  for  the  reason 
already  given,  refuse  to  seek  the  Churches  both  in  North 
Galatia  and  South  Galatia. 

While  the  term  Galatia  embraced  in  its  official  sense  the 
whole  province,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  might  not  also  be 
used  in  the  more  restricted  sense.  The  official  usage  is 
more  probable  for  Paul,  since  his  imperialist  point  of  view 
led  him  in  other  instances  to  prefer  the  official  Roman 
titles.  Galatia  bears  this  sense  in  1  Pet/er  i.  1.  This  maJ^es 
room  for  the  South  Galatian  theory  as  a  possibility,  though 
it  does  not  decide  in  its  favour.  The  proof  of  it  is  mainly 
rested  on  the  contention  that  Paul  founded  no  Churches  in 
North  Galatia.  If  he  did,  it  was  on  the  Second  Missionary 
Journey.  Luke  tells  us  that  on  this  Journey  Paul  and  his 
companions  '  passed  through  the  Phrygian  and  Galatian 
country '  (t^"  ^pvyiav  Kal  TaXaTiK^v  ;(topav),  and  it  is  in 
this  clause  that  we  must  find  concealed  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity  in  North  Galatia.  It  is  so  well  con- 
cealed that  no  one  would  guess  from  it  that  Paul  had 
preached  the  Gospel  there  in  consequence  of  illness  and  had 
met  with  an  enthusiastic  reception  from  those  who  became 
his  converts.  The  silence  of  Acts  is  not  conclusive,  for  Luke's 
interest  is  concentrated  on  the  advance  towards  Europe, 
but  it  raises  a  prejudice  at  the  outset  against  the  North 
Galatian  theory,  all  the  more  that  Luke  gives  such  full 
details  of  the  mission  elsewhere,  Cyprus,  South  Galatia, 
Macedonia,  Athens,  Corinth,  Ephesus,  though  it  is  slightly 
discounted  by  his  silence  as  to  Paul's  work  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia  (Gal.  i.  21). 

The  description  of  the  Journey  in  Acts  xvi.  6-10  is  also 
quite  unfavourable  to  the  view  that  Paul  preached  in 
North  Galatia.  The  writer's  main  drift  is  plain  :  he  wishes 
to  show  how  the  plans  of  Paul  were  twice  overruled  by  the 
Spirit,  that  he  might  be  forced  to  press  on  into  Europe,  not 


III.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  1» 

turning  aside  on  the  one  hand  to  Asia  or  on  the  other  to 
Bithynia.  A  detour  into  North  Galatia  does  not  fit  this 
general  scheme.  It  is  true  that  when  he  was  forbidden  to 
preach  in  Asia  he  might  have  struck  across  North  Galatia, 
intending  to  reach  the  eastern  side  of  Bithynia.  But  this 
is  exposed  to  great  difficulties.  The  expression  to  go  into 
Bithynia  meant  to  go  to  the  western  part  of  that  province, 
but  on  the  North  Galatian  theory  as  usually  formulated 
a  journey  through  North  Galatia  would  lead  to  the  eastern 
part.  It  is  unlikely  that  Paul  would  think  of  going  to 
Eastern  Bithynia,  for  only  one  city  in  it  would  have  been 
likely  to  attract  his  attention,  and  even  if  he  had,  he  would 
not  have  been  likely  to  go  by  land  since  the  route  was  very 
difficult.  Moreover,  we  cannot  account  on  this  view  for 
the  reference  to  Mysia.  This  route  to  Eastern  Bithynia 
would  not  bring  them  anywhere  near  Mysia,  and  the  author 
would  have  very  carelessly  omitted  to  say  how  they  came 
into  the  neighbourhood  of  Mysia. 

Again  we  learn  that  an  illness  of  Paul  was  the  occasion 
of  his  founding  the  Galatian  Churches.  The  probability, 
however,  that  he  should  have  preached  in  North  Galatia 
in  consequence  of  illness  must  be  regarded  as  remote. 
For  either  he  was  taken  ill  when  passing  through  it  to 
another  district,  or  he  went  there  to  regain  his  health. 
Against  the  former  it  must  be  said  that  the  road  through 
North  Galatia  led  nowhere  where  he  was  Ukely  to  go, 
against  the  latter  that  the  cUmate  was  singularly  unfitted 
for  an  invalid.  It  is  also  unlikely  that  time  can  be  allowed 
on  the  Second  Journey  for  the  evangelisation  of  the  places 
in  North  Galatia,  where  Paul  is  usually  supposed  to  have 
planted  Churches,  especially  when  he  was  enfeebled  and 
hampered  by  illness. 

The  avoidance  by  Euke  of  the  term  Galatia  in  xvi.  6  is 
also  difficult  to  understand  on  the  North  Galatian  theory, 
since  this  would  have  been  the  natural  as  it  is  elsewhere  the 
invariable  term.    Jiuke  however,  says  '  Galatic  territory," 


80       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

which  suggests  territory  connected  in  some  way  with  Gal- 
atia  in  the  strict  sense,  but  not  to  be  identified  with  it. 
The  whole  expression  '  the  Phrygian  and  Galatian  terri- 
tory '  Lightfoot  believes  to  designate  not  two  lands  but  one, 
'  the  Phrygo-Galatic  territory '  as  we  should  say.  He 
explains  that  North  Galatia  is  so  called  because  it  had  been 
Phrygian,  but  on  the  conquest  by  the  Gauls  had  become 
Galatic.  This  bit  of  antiquarianism,  however,  would  be 
very  surprising  in  itself,  and  it  is  exposed  to  the  objection 
that  North  Galatia  probably  did  not  retain  the  name 
Phrygia  so  late  as  this  period.  Ramsay  agrees  that  only 
one  land  is  intended,  and  that  it  is  called  '  Galatic  '  because 
it  was  a  district  connected  with  or  included  in  Galatia,  but 
one  which  Luke  did  not  choose  to  call  Galatia,  while 
'  Phrygian '  fixes  it  down  to  the  part  of  Galatia  which 
included  Iconium  and  Antioch.  It  must  be  confessed, 
however,  that  this  is  difficult  to  harmonise  with  the  true 
text  of  Acts  xvi.  6,  which  is  most  naturally  interpreted  to 
mean  that  they  went  through  the  district  in  question 
because  they  had  been  prohibited  from  preaching  in  Asia, 
and  this  part  of  their  journey  seems  to  begin  after  the 
South  Galatian  Churches  have  been  left.  Ramsay  takes 
the  prohibition  to  be  subsequent  to  their  passage  through 
the  district,  which  is  not  the  more  natural  sense.  Perhaps 
we  should  adopt  the  view  that  the  term  is  a  general  one 
denoting  the  districts  bordering  on  Galatia  and  Phrygia. 
It  is  also  possible,  and  on  the  North  Galatian  theory  im- 
perative, to  take  Phrygia  as  a  noun,  in  which  case  the  route 
lies  first  through  Phrygia  and  then  enters  Galatia.  But 
this  is  not  the  probable  meaning  of  the  Greek;  we  should 
have  expected  the  article  to  have  been  repeated.  In 
xviii.  23,  on  the  other  hand,  where  the  order  of  names  is 
reversed,  we  should  probably  take  Phrygia  as  a  noun 
translating  '  the  Galatic  territory  and  Phrygia.'  The  fact 
that  on  this  journey  Paul  strengthened  '  dU  the  disciples,' 
suggests  that  the  Galatic  territory  included  the  Churches  in 


ai.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS  SI 

South  Galatia.  Probably  the  expressions  in  xvi.  6  and 
xviii.  23  are  not  to  be  treated  as  equivalent.  It  may  be 
added  that  J.  Weiss  thinks  the  reference  to  Galatic  territory 
in  xvi.  6  to  be  so  difficult  for  both  views  that  he  is  tempted 
to  regard  it  as  a  gloss  introduced  from  xviii.  23,  or  preferably 
as  due  to  an  editorial  mistake  possibly  resting  on  a  confu- 
sion of  Ancyra  in  Phrygia  with  the  much  better-known 
Ancyra  in  Galatia. 

Under  pressure  of  the  difficulties  urged  against  the  older 
form  of  the  North  Galatian  theory,  several  of  its  defenders 
have  recently  modified  it,  and  pla.ced  the  Churches  to  which 
the  Epistle  is  addressed  in  the  north-western  part  of 
Galatia,  bordering  on  Phrygia.  This  is  a  great  improve- 
ment on  the  old  theory  inasmuch  as  it  brings  the  district 
in  which  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  founded  these  Churches 
much  nearer  to  Mysia  and  West  Bithynia  and  the  time 
required  would  be  much  shorter.  There  is  a  geographical 
argument  against  this,  however,  though  it  tells  much  more 
strongly  against  the  older  North  Galatian  theory.  Accord- 
ing to  Acts  xviii.  23  these  Churches  were  taken  by  Paul 
On  his  road  to  Ephesus,  and  on  either  form  of  the  North 
Galatian  view  he  would  have  been  obliged  to  go  out  of  his 
way  to  visit  them. 

Against  the  South  Galatian  theory  it  is  often  urged  as 
conclusive  that  Paul  could  not  have  addressed  his  readers 
by  the  term  '  Galatians.'  This  it  is  said  bore  the  ethnical 
significance  of  men  who  were  Gauls  by  descent  and  there- 
fore could  have  been  addressed  only  to  descendants  of  the 
Gauls  who  had  settled  in  North  Galatia.  It  is,  however, 
easy  to  see  how  Paul  might  use  the  term  in  addressing 
inhabitants  of  South  Galatia.  His  preference  for  imperial 
rather  than  native  nomenclature  led  him  naturally  to 
choose  the  imperial  title,  which  was  the  more  honourable 
and  also  that  most  calculated  to  stimulate  his  readers  to  be 
worthy  of  all  which  the  name  implied.  But  he  was  also 
driven  to  it  by  the  fact  that  no  other  form  of  address  waa 


22        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      Lea 

suitable.  The  heterogeneous  elements  of  which  the  South 
Galatian  Churches  were  composed  would  have  required  an 
extremely  cumbrous  mode  of  address  if  the  local  designations 
were  to  be  used,  and  what  would  have  been  even  more  fatal 
was  the  sinister  meaning  attached  to  the  terms.  To  have 
called  them  Phrygians  would  have  been  an  insult.  The  name 
nad  a  suggestion  of  slavery  and  was  a  term  of  abuse.  It  is 
also  urged  that  if  we  identify  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  described 
in  Galatians  ii.  l-IO  with  that  recorded  in  Acts  xv.,  Paul's 
language  in  Galatians  i.  21  is  strange  on  the  South  Galatian 
theory.  He  says  there,  '  Then  I  came  into  the  regions  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia,'  and  it  is  argued  that  he  could  not  very 
well  have  omitted  to  mention  that  he  had  evangelised  the 
South  Galatians  themselves  in  that  interval  had  he  been 
writing  to  the  South  Galatians.  It  is  difficult  to  feel  the 
cogency  of  this  argument.  Paul  is  not  giving  an  exhaustive 
account  of  his  labours  in  the  interval  between  his  visits  to 
Jerusalem,  else  Cyprus  could  not  have  been  omitted,  but 
simply  saying  what  he  proceeded  to  do  after  the  former  visit. 
Of  course  the  difficulty  falls  away  if  the  visit  in  Gal.  ii.  is 
identified  with  an  earUer  visit  than  that  recorded  in  Acts  xv. 
A  further  objection  is  that  Paul  could  not  have  referred  to 
the  Churches  founded  by  himself  and  Barnabas  as  if  they 
had  been  founded  by  himself  alone.  This  is  a  real  difficulty. 
But  if ,  as  is  usually  supposed,  the  letter  was  written  after 
the  rupture  between  Paul  and  Barnabas  and  the  division  of 
their  sphere  of  labour  and  Paul  had  taken  over  the  South 
Galatian  Churches,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  he  might  feel  the 
exclusive  responsibility  for  them.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
cannot  attach  such  importance  as  some  do  to  the  support 
given  to  the  South  Galatian  theory  by  the  reference  to 
Barnabas,  who  is  also  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  ix.  6,  though 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  had  visited  Corinth. 
At  the  same  time  Paul's  mode  of  reference  in  Galatians  ii.l3, 
'  even  Barnaba«  m  as  carried  away,'  gains  more  force  if  the 
readers  were  personally  acquainted  with  him. 


ni.]  THE  EPISTLB  TO  THE  QALATIANS  U 

The  arguments  which  tell  against  the  North  Galatian 
theory  are  so  many  arguments  in  favour  of  the  South 
Galatian,  and  in  addition  the  following  considerations  may 
be  urged.  The  narrative  of  Paul's  Second  Missionary 
Journey  runs  on  quite  smoothly  and  is  free  from  the 
geographical  and  chronological  difficulties  that  beset  the 
other  theory  and  have  already  been  pointed  out.  Paul 
follows  a  route  which  brings  him  through  Asia  over  against 
Mysia,  near  to  Bithynia,  in  such  a  way  that  he  can  go 
through  or  along  the  border  of  Mysia  to  Troas.  And  the 
Journey  can  be  done  in  the  time  allowed  for  it  by  the 
exigencies  of  chronology.  The  account  of  Paul's  preaching 
there  in  consequence  of  illness  is  explained  by  a  conjecture 
of  Ramsay,  that  he  caught  a  malarial  fever  in  the  enervat- 
ing climate  of  Pamphylia,  which  is  most  dangerous  to 
strangers,  and  on  that  account  struck  up  into  the  high 
lands  of  the  interior,  which  would  be  most  likely  to  restore 
him  to  health.  He  accounts  for  Mark's  refusal  to  accom- 
pany him  as  due  to  the  fact  that  this  going  into  the  interior 
was  contrary  to  their  original  programme.  This  latter 
suggestion  is  improbable,  for  it  would  argue  a  peculiar 
baseness  on  the  part  of  Mark  to  desert  the  apostle  at  this 
Juncture,  and  the  phrase  used  in  Acts  xv.  38  that  Mark 
'  went  not  with  them  to  the  work  '  suggests  that  the  party 
had  left  Pamphylia  to  prosecute  a  missionary  campaign  in 
the  interior.  Moreover,  a  plausible  case  can  be  made  out 
for  other  forms  of  illness  than  malarial  fever.  The  refer- 
ence to  the  case  of  Titus  and  the  charge  mentioned  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that  Paul  had  preached  circum- 
cision are  important.  Timothy  had  been  circumcised  by 
him  in  this  very  district,  and  he  was  a  member  of  one  of 
these  Churches.  Such  a  oase  would  give  a  handle  to  his 
enemies,  and  it  would  appeal  especially  to  those  who  had 
known  the  circumstances  of  it.  Lastly,  there  is  the  argu- 
ment derived  from  the  reference  to  the  collection  in  the 
Pauline  Churches  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem.    This  ii 


24        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oa 

referred  to  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (ii.  10),  and  in 
1  Cor.  xvi.  1  we  learn  that  Paul  had  instructed  the  Galatians 
to  participate.  From  the  indications  in  the  Epistles  we 
gather  that  the  Churches  in  Galatia,  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
contributed,  and  from  Acts  xx.  4  we  find  that  represen- 
tatives of  Asia  also  went  up  with  Paul  when  he  took  the 
offering,  according  to  the  principle  laid  down  in  1  Cor.  xvi. 
3,  4.  In  other  words  the  Pauline  Churches  generally  seem 
to  have  contributed.  If,  however,  the  Cliurches  of  Galatia 
were  churches  in  North  Galatia,  then  the  churches  founded 
on  the  First  Missionary  Journey  in  South  Galatia  would 
have  taken  no  part.  This  in  itself  is  very  improbable,  but 
the  improbabiUty  is  much  heightened  by  the  fact  that, 
according  to  Acts  xx.  4,  representatives  from  Derbe  and 
Lystra,  i.e.  from  South  Galatian  Churches,  did  accompany 
Paul,  whereas  no  reference  is  made  to  representatives  of 
North  Galatian  Churches. 

The  Epistle  has  been  assigned  to  the  most  various  dates ; 
some  have  made  it  the  earliest  and  some  one  of  the  latest 
of  Paul's  extant  letters,  and  within  these  limits  almost 
every  position  has  been  claimed  for  it.  The  divergence 
reflects  the  scarcity  and  ambiguity  of  the  data  for  a 
decision ;  and  unless  we  are  tempted  by  ingenious  but 
unsubstantial  combinations  we  must  acquiesce  in  a  rather 
large  measure  of  uncertainty.  The  Epistle  was  written 
after  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  recorded  in  the  second  chapter, 
and  at  the  time  it  was  written  Paul  seems  to  have  visited 
the  Churches  twice  (iv.  13).  As  to  the  former  of  these 
points,  great  uncertainty  hangs  over  the  identification  of 
the  visit.  This  belongs  to  History  rather  than  to  Criticism, 
but  it  has  a  bearing  on  the  date  of  the  Epistle  and  must 
therefore  be  briefiy  discussed.  In  the  Epistle  Paul  mentions 
the  visits  he  made  to  Jerusalem,  in  order  that  he  might 
prove  his  independence  of  the  early  apostles.  After  hia 
return  from  Arabia  and  his  departure  from  Damascus  he 
went  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter  and  stayed  with  him 


III.}  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GaLATIANS  IB 

fifteen  days.  This  would  be  the  visit  recorded  in  Acts 
ix.  26-30,  though  it  is  difl&cult  to  harmonise  the  two 
•ccounts.  The  second  visit  mentioned  in  Galatians  is 
that  on  which  he  went  up  by  revelation  to  discuss  with  the 
chief  apostles  the  relation  of  the  Gentile  converts  to  the 
Law.  Modem  critics  almost  unanimously  identify  this 
visit  with  that  in  Acts  xv.  But  Acts  mentions  another 
visit  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  (xi.  30)  on  which  they  brought 
reUef  to  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem  who  were  suffering 
from  the  famine.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  briefest  way,  and 
little  importance  seems  to  be  attached  to  it  by  the  writer. 
The  usual  identification  is  thus  exposed  to  a  serious 
difl&culty.  Paul  is  showing  that  he  had  no  such  contact 
with  the  older  apostles  as  to  Justify  the  opinion  that  he 
owed  anything  to  them.  We  should  expect  then  that  he 
would  scrupulously  enumerate  every  visit  to  Jerusalem.  If, 
however,  the  view  is  right  that  the  second  visit  mentioned 
by  Paul  (Gal.  ii.)  corresponds  to  the  third  mentioned  in 
Acts  (Acts  XV.),  then  we  have  three  possibiUties.  Either 
Paul  has  omitted  the  famine  visit  as  irrelevant  to  his 
purpose,  or  we  must  regard  that  visit  as  one  on  which  he 
did  not  come  in  contact  with  the  apostles,  or  there  is  some 
mistake  in  the  narrative  in  Acts.  The  second  alternative 
is  not  probable.  It  is  true  that  the  narrative  does  not  say 
that  Paul  came  to  Jerusalem  on  the  famine  visit  or  saw 
any  of  the  apostles.  The  relief  was  sent  to  the  brethren  in 
Judaea  and  it  was  sent  to  the  elders.  Still,  the  head- 
qnarters  of  the  Churches  in  Judaea  would  be  Jerusalem,  and 
that  is  where  Paul  and  Barnabas  would  naturally  go.  Nor 
is  it  clear  that  Peter  was  in  prison  or  in  hiding  at  the  time, 
for  the  persecution  by  Herod  may  not  have  been  at  this 
time.  Even  apart  from  this,  Paul  could  hardly  afford  to 
neglect  the  visit ;  he  would  have  explained  that  though  he 
was  in  Judaea  he  saw  none  of  the  apostles.  The  third 
alternative  is  adopted  by  some  who  think  that  the  visit  is 
misplaoed,  or  that  Acts  xi.  30  and  Acta  xv.  really  refer  to 


86       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oh. 

the  same  visit,  that  is,  the  visit  recorded  in  Gal.  ii.  A 
comparison  of  the  account  in  Gal.  ii.  with  that  in  Acts  xv. 
reveals  some  differences  which  are  more  or  less  capable  of 
reconciliation,  but  which  must  have  their  weight  in  de- 
termining the  question.  We  need  attach  no  importance  to 
the  fact  that  Acts  represents  him  as  sent  by  the  Church  of 
Antioch,  while  Paul  says  he  went  up  by  revelation.  These 
•statements  are  not  in  conflict.  Further,  Paul  relates  a 
private  discussion,  Luke  a  public  debate.  But  the  former 
suggests  (ii.  2)  a  tacit  contrast  between  the  private  confer- 
ence in  which  he  won  the  leaders  over,  and  a  meeting  of  the 
whole  Church.  The  most  serious  discrepancy  exists  be- 
tween Paul's  statement  that  the  older  apostles  added 
nothing  to  him  except  that  they  should  remember  the 
poor,  and  the  statement  of  Luke  that  certain  restrictions 
were  imposed  on  the  Gentiles.  It  is  also  strange  that  Paul 
does  not  mention  these  decrees  if  the  Epistle  went  to 
Churches  in  South  Galatia,  since  we  are  told  in  Acts  xvi.  4 
that  he  communicated  them  to  these  Churches. 

There  is  no  conflict  between  the  account  in  Acts  xi.  30 
and  that  in  Gal.  ii.  But  this  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  contact  between  them.  The  account  in  Acts  is 
very  brief,  and  if  a  mere  private  discussion  had  been  in 
question  naturally  Luke  would  not  have  mentioned  it. 
But  we  can  see  from  Gal.  ii.  that  this  was  by  no  means  all 
that  occurred.  The  '  false  brethren '  displayed  much 
activity,  and  attempts  were  made  to  force  Titus  to  be 
circumcised.  It  is  also  hard  to  see  why  Paul  should  not 
have  mentioned  that  a  main  object  of  his  journey  was  to 
bring  relief  to  the  poor,  especially  as  he  would  thus  have 
made  it  clear  that  his  care  for  the  poor  was  not  first 
prompted  by  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  questionable 
if  the  famine  visit,  assuming  it  to  be  distinct  from  that  in 
Acts  XV.,  can  be  placed  so  late  as  fourteen  years  (Gal.  ii.  1) 
after  Paul's  conversion.  The  latter  objection  tells  against 
the  view  put  forward  by  J.  V.  Bartlet  and  others  that  the 


<ii.J  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  QALATIANS  f7 

Writ  recorded  in  Gal.  ii.  was  earlier  even  than  the  famine 
visit.  This  view  is  also  exposed  to  the  difficulty  that  it 
postulates  a  journey  to  Jerusalem  otherwise  unknown  to  us, 
though  this  is  not  insuperable.  It  escapes  some  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  previous  identification,  and  Paul's 
omission  of  the  famine  visit  is  then  quite  intelligible,  for 
he  did  not  need  to  continue  the  story  of  his  relations  with 
the  apostles  after  they  had  recognised  his  Grospel  and 
apostleship.  It  is  not  essential  perhaps  for  our  purpose  to 
make  a  definite  decision  between  these  possibilities.  We 
may  leave  the  ground  clear  for  a  date  before  the  Apostolic 
Conference  of  Acts  xv.  if  on  other  grounds  such  a  date 
should  seem  desirable. 

A  date  so  early  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  definitely 
excluded  by  the  fact  that  Paul  appears  to  have  visited  the 
Galatian  Churches  twice.  On  llie  North  Galatian  theory 
his  second  visit  to  Galatia  occurred  on  the  Third  Missionary 
Journey,  on  the  South  Galatian  theory  on  the  Second,  in 
both  cases  after  the  Apostolic  Conference  of  Acts  xv. 
It  is  possible,  however,  to  evade  this  conclusion  if  we 
identify  the  second  visit  with  that  made  by  Paul  on  his 
return  journey  through  the  South  Galatian  cities  on  the 
occasion  of  his  first  mission  to  them.  And  if  this  be  held 
unsatisfactory  it  is  possible  to  fall  back  on  the  view  that 
we  must  not  interpret  iv.  13  as  necessarily  implying  two 
visits. 

It  is  held,  however,  by  many  that  we  are  shut  up  to  a 
date  subsequent  to  the  Second  Missionary  Journey  by  the 
stage  of  theological  development  reached  in  the  Epistle. 
Its  affinities  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  written 
towards  the  close  of  the  Third  Journey  are  striking,  and  it 
is  commonly  thought  to  belong  chronologically  to  the  group 
of  which  the  other  members  are  Romans  and  1  and  2 
Corinthians.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  it  ii 
said,  we  have  a  much  more  elementary  stage  of  Paulinism 
than  in  the  great  controversial  group,  and  Galatians  mnsl 


as        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

Iheiefore  be  later  than  those  Epistles.  The  present 
writer  can  only  repeat  with  the  utmost  emphasis  his 
conviction  that  the  inference  rests  on  a  radical  error.  It 
would  argue  an  incredible  inabiUty  on  Paul's  part  to  grasp 
the  logical  implications  of  his  own  experience,  of  his  work 
among  the  Gentiles,  of  the  battle  for  freedom  he  had 
fought  at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch,  to  suppose  that  he  had 
but  lately  emerged  into  a  clear  realisation  of  the  relations 
between  the  Gospel  and  the  Law.  His  incisive  refuta- 
tion of  Peter  at  Antioch  contradicts  such  a  fallacy,  and 
Paul's  amazement  at  the  sudden  defection  of  the  Galatians 
would  have  but  little  warrant  if  he  had  preached  nothing 
but  an  immature  Paulinism  among  them.  Even  before  his 
conversion  we  may  well  believe  that  he  had  seen  what  the 
proclamation  of  a  crucified  Messiah  implied  for  the  religion 
of  the  Law.  And  in  his  conversion  his  whole  Gospel  was 
implicitly  given.  The  idea  that  Paul  must  expound  his 
theology  in  every  letter  he  wrote,  even  to  Churches  he  had 
himself  founded  and  trained,  under  penalty  of  being 
Judged  not  yet  to  have  grasped  it,  needs  only  to  be  stated 
for  its  imreasonableness  to  be  patent.  If  Romans  and 
Galatians  have  such  points  of  similarity,  that  arises  from  the 
kinship  of  the  subject.  But  this  kinship  is  not  due  to  the 
fact  that  Paul  had  only  just  thought  out  his  principles 
to  meet  the  crisis  in  Galatia,  and  then  with  these  upper- 
most in  his  mind  expounded  them  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  They  were  his  fundamental  principles,  and 
therefore  naturally  the  main  theme  of  a  letter  to  the 
Church  in  the  imperial  city  which  had  not  learnt  the 
Gospel  from  his  lips.  But  just  because  they  constituted 
his  Gospel,  when  the  blow  was  struck  at  its  vitals,  he 
reiterated  it  to  those  who  had  already  been  taught  it,  no 
doubt  with  fresh  felicity  of  illustration  and  expression, 
with  appropriate  ingenuity  of  appeal,  but  with  no  variation 
from  principles  long  clear  to  him  as  the  sunlight.  When 
he  dealt  with  the  same  theme,  on  which  his  mind  had  long 


m.)  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  6AJATIANS  89 

been  made  up,  he  inevitably  treated  it  on  the  familiar 
lines,  though  an  interval  of  many  years  might  lie  between 
the  various  expositions  of  it. 

If  we  accept  the  North  Galatian  theory  we  should  pro- 
bably date  the  Epistle  on  the  Third  Missionary  Journey. 
If  Paul  was  settled  in  any  place  at  the  time  it  is  most 
natural  to  think  of  the  Epistle  as  written  from  Ephesus, 
though  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  in  this  coimexion 
on  '  so  quickly '  of  i.  6.  In  that  case  we  should  place  it 
before  1  Corinthians  and  infer  from  the  reference  in  1  Cor. 
xvi.  1  that  Paul's  letter  had  won  back  the  Churches  to 
their  loyalty.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  it  was  written 
after  2  Corinthians  in  Corinth.  It  is  equally  possible 
that  it  was  written  while  Paul  was  travelling,  and  this  is 
favoured  by  the  absence  of  definite  reference  to  the  place 
of  writing,  while  the  mention  of  all  the  brethren  who  are 
with  him  (i.  2)  may  mean  those  who  have  accompanied 
him  on  this  tour.  If,  however,  we  adopt,  as  we  probably 
should,  the  South  Galatian  theory,  it  is  more  likely  that 
the  Epistle  was  written  before  the  Third  Missionary 
Journey.  But  this  leaves  us,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
with  a  wide  range  of  possibilities.  We  should,  however, 
probably  set  aside  on  several  grounds  the  view  that  it 
is  to  be  dated  before  the  Second  Missionary  Journey. 
The  Epistle  apparently  implies  two  visits,  and  this  is  more 
naturally  interpreted  of  the  visits  on  the  First  and  Second 
Journey  than  of  the  visit  and  return  visit  on  the  First 
Journey.  Further,  the  balance  of  argument  seems  to  be  in 
favour  of  the  identification  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem 
described  in  Galatians  ii.  with  that  described  in  Acts  xv. 
It  is,  however,  difficult  to  acquiesce  in  McGiffert's  view 
that  the  letter  was  written  by  Paul  at  Antioch  on  his 
return  from  Jerusalem,  since  he  went  from  Antioch  to 
Galatia,  whereas  the  suggestion  in  the  Epistle  is  that  he 
writes  to  them  because  he  cannot  come.  What,  however, 
seems  decisive  is  the  complete  ignoring  of  Barnabas'  Joint 


30       INTKODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

responsibility  for  the  Church.  This  appears  to  point 
conclusively  to  a  date  after  their  quarrel  and  the  division 
of  their  sphere  of  missionary  labour.  Accordingly  we  must 
date  the  Epistle  after  Paul's  second  visit  when  he  had 
separated  from  Barnabas  and  had  given  a  handle  to  his 
unscrupulous  enemies  by  the  circumcision  of  Timothy. 
It  may  of  course  be  urged  against  this  that  if  Paul  had 
seen  the  Churches  after  the  conference  at  Jerusalem 
described  in  the  second  chapter,  he  would  have  told  them 
when  he  was  with  them.  But  a  similar  difficulty  attaches 
to  the  autobiography  in  the  first  chapter.  Moreover,  it 
is  hardly  probable  that  Paul  would  recount  the  secret 
history  of  his  conference  with  the  leaders  at  Jerusalem ; 
he  does  so  in  the  letter  only  under  pressure  of  extreme 
provocation.  It  may  then  have  been  written  during  the 
Second  Missionary  Journey  or  in  the  interval  between  this 
and  the  next  Journey.  Ramsay's  view  that  it  was  written 
at  Antioch  in  this  interval  is  exposed  to  a  similar  objection 
as  McGiffert's  that  it  was  written  during  the  previous 
stay  at  Antioch.  To  identify  '  all  the  brethren  who  are 
with  me '  as  the  whole  Church  at  Antioch  would  imply  an 
undue  egotism  on  Paul's  part ;  the  phrase  rather  suggests 
his  companions  in  travel.  Ramsay's  view  is  open  to  the 
further  objection  that  he  identifies  the  visit  in  Galatians  ii. 
with  the  famine  visit.  It  is  surely  probable  that  if  the 
letter  was  written  after  the  deliberations  recorded  in  Acta 
XV.,  Paul  would  have  made  some  reference  to  them  in  this 
Epistleb 


W.J  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIaMS  M 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  XPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS 

1  CJoRiNTHiANS,  which  had  been  preceded  by  an  earlier 
letter  (v.  9)  now  entirely  or  largely  lost  to  us,  was  written 
by  Paul  from  Ephesus,  apparently  in  the  spring  of  the 
year  (a.d.  55)  in  which  his  work  at  Ephesus  came  to  an 
end.  The  Epistle  was  written  partly  in  reply  to  a  letter 
from  the  Church  at  Corinth  dealing  with  practical  problems 
on  which  the  Church  desired  guidance,  partly  on  the  basis 
of  information  as  to  abuses  in  the  Church  which  had 
reached  the  apostle  through  other  channels.  The  genuine- 
ness of  the  Epistle  has  been  almost  universally  admitted  ; 
it  was  regaxded  as  axiomatic  by  the  Tiibingen  school  and 
is  accepted  by  all  but  the  hjrper-critics  who  deny  the 
authenticity  of  all  the  Pauline  Epistles.  It  is  definitely 
attested  by  Clement  of  Rome  before  the  close  of  the  first 
century  a.d.  It  was  almost  certainly  employed  by 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  not  improbably  by  Hermas.  It 
is  needless  to  discuss  the  suggestions  that  the  Epistle 
contains  portions  of  more  than  one  letter.  As  an  example 
it  may  be  mentioned  that  a  discrepancy  has  been  dis- 
covered between  the  attitude  adopted  by  Paul  in  x.  1-22, 
and  that  adopted  by  him  in  viii.,  x.  23-33.  These  sections 
are  supposed  to  belong  to  different  letters,  both  earUer 
than  the  bulk  of  1  Corinthians.  It  is  true  that  there  is  a 
difference.  But  it  points  to  no  development  in  Paul's 
views ;  it  rests  on  the  fact  that  in  viii.  he  discusses  the 
^oeetion  of  meats  offered  to  idols  from  the  standpoint  of 


S2        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

the  '  intellectuals '  at  Corinth.  He  reaches  the  concmalon 
that  even  if  we  grant  that  from  such  a  nonentity  as  the 
idol  no  moral  defilement  can  come,  we  must  not  suffer 
those  who  are  not  emancipated  from  the  thraldom  of 
their  old  associations,  because  they  cannot  really  be 
damaged  by  the  Lutrinsic  mischief  of  the  food,  to  be 
spiritually  ruined  by  violation  of  their  conscience  in 
deference  to  our  precept  and  example.  In  x.  1-22,  however, 
he  states  the  question  in  his  own  way.  Behind  the 
lifeless  idol  block  there  was  the  Uving  demon,  and  those 
who  participated  in  the  idol  sacrifices  were  in  peril  from 
the  demoniacal  virus  with  which  they  were  infected. 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  not  so  well 
attested  by  external  evidence  as  1  Corinthians.  It  is  very 
strange  that  Clement  of  Rome  seems  to  have  been  entirely 
unacquainted  with  it,  and  to  have  made  no  reference  to 
it  in  the  letter  he  wrote  for  the  Church  of  Rome  to  the 
Church  of  Corinth.  Since  his  silence  is  not  accounted  for 
by  any  unsuitability  of  content  to  his  purpose,  the  probable 
inference  is  that  he  did  not  know  of  it.  The  Epistle  seems 
to  have  come  into  general  circulation  less  rapidly  than 
1  Corinthians.  It  was  probably  used  by  Polycarp  shortly 
afterwards  and  was  taken  by  Marcion  into  his  canon. 
It  is  frequently  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenaeus  and  later 
writers  and  is  included  in  the  Muratorian  Canon. 

If,  however,  there  had  been  no  external  attestation  at  all 
in  antiquity  and  the  Epistle  had  been  discovered  in  our  own 
day,  its  genuineness  would  be  amply  proved  by  its  internal 
characteristics.  It  is  its  own  adequate  attestation.  The 
complexity  of  relations  between  Paul  and  the  Corinthian 
Church,  the  note  of  reality  which  rings  in  every  sentence, 
the  mighty  personality  which  the  letter  reveals,  are  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  most  skilful  imitator.  Besides, 
we  could  not  imderstand  why  so  much  labour  should  be 
expended  to  create  an  intricate  historical  situation  which 


nr.]  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  33 

could  serve  no  purpose  a  later  writer  would  have 
had  in  view  and  be  completely  without  interest  for 
second  centuiy  readers.  Nowhere  is  the  hypothesis  of 
pseadonymity  so  grotesque  as  in  the  case  of  this  Epistle, 
nowhere  is  it  10  manifest  a  sign  of  complete  critical  in- 
competence. 

But  while  tlie  genuineness  of  the  letter  is  beyond  ail 
reasonable  queation,  the  critical  problems  it  presents  are 
of  the  most  complicated  and  difficult  character.  Partly 
they  are  historiml,  concerned  with  the  relations  between 
Paul  and  the  Coiinthian  Church  in  the  iuterval  between  the 
two  Epistles,  partly  they  are  critical.  With  the  former 
we  have  to  do  only  so  far  as  they  affect  our  decision  on  the 
latter.  The  circumstances  which  led  to  the  writing  of 
2  Corinthians  are  indicated  by  Paul  himself  at  the  opening 
of  the  letter  and  again  in  the  seventh  chapter.  He  had 
sent  a  very  severe  letter  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  written 
with  many  tears  out  of  much  affliction  and  anguish  of 
heart.  After  he  had  dispatched  it  he  suffered  an  agony 
of  apprehension  lest  the  severity  of  his  tone  might  produce 
a  complete  rupture  between  himself  and  the  Corinthian 
Church.  His  anxiety  to  meet  Titus  and  learn  the  effect 
of  his  letter  was  such  that  he  could  not  avail  himself  of 
the  opportunity  afforded  him  of  preaching  the  Gospel 
in  Troas,  but  crossed  into  Macedonia  where  he  met  Titus 
and  learnt  to  his  reUef  that  the  Corinthian  Church  had 
now  returned  to  its  loyalty,  at  least  so  far  as  the  majority 
was  concerned.  An  offender  round  whom  the  controversy 
had  gathered  and  whose  punishment  Paul  had  demanded, 
had  been  punished  by  the  majority.  Paul  regards  the 
punishment  that  had  been  inflicted  as  sufficient  and  now 
requests  the  Church  to  forgive  him. 

It  is  natural  that  earlier  scholars  should  have  assumed 
that  the  letter  which  Paul  regretted  to  have  sent  was 
I  Corinthians,  though  difficulties  were  felt  in  reconstruct- 
ing on  this  hypothesii  the  history  in  the  interval.    When 

CI 


84        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [cH. 

Paul  sent  the  First  Epistle  he  anticipated  that  his  letter 
would  be  followed  by  a  visit  from  Timothy  (iv.  17,  xvi^  10). 
When  he  writes  the  Second  Epistle,  however,  he  makes  no 
reference  to  Timothy's  visit,  although  Timothy  was  with 
him  when  he  wrote,  but  says  how  intensely  anxious  he 
was  for  the  return  of  Titus.  The  discussion  of  this  difficulty 
and  the  numerous  solutions  which  have  been  proposed 
only  concern  us  slightly  here.  For  a  good  while  now  the 
opinion  has  been  very  widely  held  that  the  letter  whick 
caused  Paul  such  anxiety  cannot  have  been  1  Corinthians. 
It  is  perfectly  true  that  there  were  severe  passages  in  the 
letter,  but  its  total  impression,  even  if  we  suppose  that  these 
passages  stood  out  in  exaggerated  prominence  in  Paul's 
recollection,  simply  does  not  answer  to  Paul's  description. 
It  is  not  comparable  in  the  sharpness  of  its  tone  to  the 
closing  portion  of  2  Corinthians  itself,  which  for  con- 
centrated and  passionate  invective  has  no  parallel  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  In  the  next  place  the  reference  to  the 
offender  does  not  suit  the  incestuous  person  whose  punish- 
ment Paul  had  solemnly  decreed  in  the  First  Epistle. 
The  father  of  the  latter  was  presumably  dead,  but  the 
injured  person  of  2  Corinthians  was  still  alive.  Moreover, 
if  we  identify  the  offender  in  the  two  Epistles,  the  grossness 
of  the  offence  seems  to  be  passed  over  altogether  too 
lightly  in  the  Second.  Accordingly  it  is  now  held  by  a 
large  number  of  scholars  that  we  must  reject  the  identi- 
fication of  the  severe  letter  with  1  Corinthians  and  regard 
it  as  a  later  letter.  Whether  we  are  to  suppose  that  Paul 
paid  a  visit  to  the  Corinthian  Church  in  the  interval  and 
was  deeply  insulted  by  a  ringleader  of  the  opposition,  or 
whether  the  severe  letter  was  elicited  by  an  unfavourable 
report  from  Timothy,  or  whether  the  history  should  be 
reconstructed  in  some  other  way  is  a  question  that  lies 
outside  our  discussion.  The  first  view,  it  may  simply  be 
said,  seems  to  the  present  writer  the  most  probable.  It 
is  in  any  case  likely  that  the  offender  of  2  Corinthians  had 


IT.]  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  3A 

grossly  insulted  Paul  either  in  person  or  in  the  person  of 
his  representative. 

But  if  we  have  to  surrender  the  identification  of  the 
tevere  letter  with  1  Corinthians  the  question  arises  whether 
it  has  been  completely  lost.  This  view  is  adopted  by  many 
modem  critics  including  Holsten,  Holtzmann,  JiiHcher, 
Sanday,  Bousset,  and  Lietzmann.  It  was  suggested  by 
Hausrath,  however,  and  the  suggestion  has  been  very  widely 
adopted,  that  we  are  to  find  a  large  part  of  this  letter  in 
the  last  four  chapters  of  2  Corinthians.  A  hypothesis  of 
this  kind  no  doubt  has  strong  'prima  facie  evidence  against 
it.  These  chapters  have  come  down  to  us  as  part  of  the 
Epistle  to  which  they  are  attached,  and  there  is  no  external 
evidence  nor  yet  any  indication  in  the  history  of  the  text 
that  they  ever  had  any  independent  existence.  Moreover, 
it  is  said  that  these  chapters  do  not  answer  to  the  de- 
scription of  the  letter  which  Paul  himself  gives.  We  have 
no  reference  in  these  chapters  to  Paul's  demand  that  the 
offender  should  be  punished,  though  this  must  have  been 
contained  in  the  severe  letter.  It  is  also  urged  that 
2  Corinthians  xii.  16-18  is  decisive  against  the  hypothesis. 
In  that  passage  we  have  a  reference  to  a  visit  of  Titus  and 
work  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  accomplished  previously 
to  the  sending  of  the  letter.  Since  Titus  seems  to  have 
been  sent  either  with  that  letter  or  shortly  before  or  after, 
we  cannot  suppose  that  the  severe  letter  could  contain  the 
reference  in  xii.  16-18,  and  therefore  must  infer  that  these 
chapters  cannot  be  identified  with  the  severe  letter.  It  is 
not  easily  conceivable,  however,  that  Titus  should  have 
been  burdened  with  the  duty  of  attending  to  the  collection 
at  the  very  time  when  the  Church  was  in  open  mutiny. 
We  must  therefore  suppose  that  this  is  a  different  visit. 
The  objection  that  there  is  no  demand  for  the  punishment 
of  the  offender  in  2  Co?,  x.-xiii.  is  relevant  only  if  we  suppose 
that  no  part  of  the  severe  letter  has  been  lost.  It  is  very 
probable  that  if  the  two  letters  were  accidentally  united 


36       INTRODUCnON  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oh. 

the  end  of  one  and  the  beginning  of  the  other  must  have 
been  lost,  otherwise  it  would  have  been  obvious  that  they 
were  distinct.  The  difference  in  tone  between  the  first 
nine  chapters  and  the  concluding  chapters,  which  makes 
it  psychologically  inconceivable  to  many  that  they  should 
belong  to  the  same  letter,  is  accounted  for  either  by  the 
view  that  here  Paul  addresses  only  the  rebellious  minority 
— but  this  is  contradicted  by  various  passages  in  these 
chapters  and  Paul  must  have  made  the  transition  plain — 
or  by  the  view  that  meanwhile  unfavourable  news  had 
come  from  Corinth,  which  is  negatived  not  simply  by  the 
misjudgment  of  the  situation  on  the  part  of  Titus  which 
this  would  involve,  but  by  the  absolute  failure  of  any 
indication  of  such  news,  or  lastly  by  the  supposition  that 
Paul  himself  ceaeed  to  dictate  and  began  to  write  and  waa 
carried  away  by  the  strength  of  his  feelings,  a  supposition 
which  presumably  does  not  arise  from  any  experience  of 
dictated  correspondence. 

The  present  writer  sees  no  escape  from  the  con- 
clusion that  the  closing  chapters  of  2  Corinthians 
formed  part  of  the  severe  letter.  It  is  significant 
that  two  lines  of  evidence  should  converge  upon  it. 
On  the  one  side  we  have  the  description  of  a  letter  in 
the  early  chapters  of  2  Corinthians  which  it  seems  impossible 
to  identify  with  our  First  Epistle  ;  and  then  as  corroborat- 
ing this  we  have  the  surprising  character  of  the  last  four 
chapters  of  2  Corinthians  as  part  of  the  same  letter  which 
we  find  in  the  first  nine  chapters.  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  two  sections  of  the  Epistles  hold  together.  If 
2  Corinthians  is  a  unity,  we  have  the  following  state  of 
things  :  Paul  sends  a  very  stem  letter  to  Corinth,  and  is 
filled  with  regret  for  the  writing  of  it,  and  apprehension  as 
to  its  reception.  In  the  Joyful  reaction  caused  by  the 
good  news  of  Titus,  he  writes  a  letter  overflowing  with 
affection  at  the  beginning,  and  concluding  with  a  sharpness 
of  invective  to  be  paralleled  nowhere  else  in  his  Epistles. 


IT.)  THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  37 

K  we  identify  these  chapters  with  the  letter  which  caused 
him  such  pain  to  write  and  such  anxiety  when  written, 
we  escape  from  the  serious  difficulty  of  supposing  that 
Paul  concluded  the  letter,  begun  in  the  strain  of  for- 
give and  forget,  with  so  vehement  a  defence  against  his 
antagonists.  Was  Paul  the  man,  after  the  Church  had 
returned  to  its  loyalty,  and  he  had  thanked  God  devoutly 
for  it,  to  open  the  old  wound  and  pour  forth  on  the  heads 
of  his  enemies  vials  of  unrestrained  indignation  ?  If, 
when  the  Church  was  in  arms  against  him,  he  doubted 
whether  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  sending  one  letter, 
would  he  be  likely,  after  the  reconciliation,  to  send  another 
of  the  same  character  ?  Indeed  one  may  well  ask  what 
must  the  letter  have  been  which  filled  him  with  such 
tormenting  anxiety  if,  after  the  fright  he  had  given  himself, 
he  could  calmly  send  the  last  portion  of  2  Corinthians  in 
the  serene  confidence  that  this  would  seal  anew  the  com- 
pact of  peace  between  them?  It  is  in  itself  conceivable  if 
the  composition  of  the  letter  was  spread  over  several  days, 
or  even  if  an  anxious  sleepless  night  ifrtarvened  between 
the  two  parts  of  the  letter,  that  Paul's  sense  of  relief 
may  have  been  replaced  by  indignation  as  he  brooded  on 
the  unhappy  past.  Not  only,  however,  is  this  highly 
improbable,  but  it  would  be  rather  difficult  to  understand 
why  he  should  have  allowed  the  first  part  of  the  letter 
to  stand  and  not  substituted  something  more  consonant 
with  his  altered  mood.  We  need  not  Join  with  Paul's 
Corinthian  critics  in  conceiving  him  to  be  so  flighty  and 
mercurial  as  that. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  we  have  another  fragment  from 
Paul's  correspondence  with  Corinth  included  in  the  Second 
Epistle.  It  was  long  ago  observed  that  vi.  14-vii.  1 
interrupted  the  progress  of  thought  and  that  vil.  2  con- 
nected admirably  with  vi.  13.  Since  Paul  refers  in 
1  Cor.  V.  9  to  an  earlier  letter  which  he  had  written  to 
Corinth,  and  the  subject  matter  of  this  intrusive  paragraph 


38        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oB. 

in  2  Corinthians  suits  very  well  what  we  may  infer  the 
lost  letter  to  have  been,  it  is  not  an  unnatural  hypothesis 
that  it  originally  formed  part  of  it.  We  can  hardly 
suppose  that  any  one  would  have  deliberately  inserted  it 
at  this  point,  so  that  if  this  theory  is  correct  we  must 
assume  that  it  owes  its  present  position  to  some  accident, 
such  as  has  occasioned  the  combination  of  2  Cor.  x.-xiii. 
with  2  Cor.  i.-ix.  If  however,  as  many  scholars  think, 
the  passage  may  be  accounted  for  in  its  present  position, 
we  must  reconcile  ourselves  to  the  view  that  the  letter 
which  preceded  1  Corinthians  has  been  lost.  In  any  case 
there  is  no  valid  ground  for  the  supposition  that  2  Cor. 
vi.  14  -  vii.  1  is  spurious,  though  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
closing  words  are  not  preserved  for  us  in  precisely  the 
form  in  which  they  left  the  hands  of  Paul.  That  some 
things  in  the  section  cannot  be  matched  elsewhere  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles  is  of  course  true,  but  of  how  many  othw 
passages  mignt  not  the  same  thing  be  Mid  7 


f.l  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  EOMANS 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

This  Epistle  is  attested  not  simply  by  patristic,  but  by 
New  Testament  evidence.  It  was  certainly  used  by  the 
author  of  1  Peter  and  probably  by  the  authors  of  James 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Clement  of  Rome, 
Ignatius  and  Polycarp  draw  freely  upon  it ;  it  was  included 
in  the  Canon  of  Marcion.  Later  evidence  which  is 
abundant  need  not  be  quoted.  Its  genuineness  is  assured 
fay  internal  evidence,  and  by  its  intimate  connexion  with 
the  other  Pauline  literature.  It  was  written  apparently 
at  Corinth,  a  few  months  after  2  Cor.  i.-ix.,  and  its  tone 
testifies  to  the  apostle's  success  in  winning  back  the 
allegiance  of  that  community.  One  of  the  most  important 
of  the  seriously  debated  questions  relates  to  the  com* 
position  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  more  usual  view  is 
that  the  Church  was  in  the  main  a  Gentile  Church  with 
Jewish  elements.  The  other  view  held  by  Baur  and  many 
more  is  that  it  was  in  the  main  Jewish  Christian  with 
Gentile  elements.  In  favour  of  the  latter  view  it  is  said 
that  Paul  refers  to  Abraham  as  '  our  forefather,'  and  in  the 
present  chapter  speaks  of  his  readers  as  '  men  that  know 
the  law,*  and  as  having  been  *  made  dead  to  the  law  through 
the  body  of  Christ.'  He  also  says  '  we  have  been  dis- 
charged from  the  law,  having  died  to  that  wherein  we  were 
holden.*  It  is  also  thought  that  only  in  this  way  is  it 
possible  to  find  a  vahd  reason  for  the  inclusion  of  the 
chapters  on  Election,  since  the  Grentiles  would  not  feel  so 


40       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      fca 

keenly  as  Jewish  Christians  the  difficulty  caused  by  the 
Jewish  rejection  of  the  Gospel.  But  these  argumenta 
are  none  of  them  strong  and  are  amply  met  by  the  admission 
that  there  was  a  Jewish  Christian  element  in  the  Church, 
and  the  probabiUty  that  some  of  the  Grentile  Christians 
had  been  proselytes  before  they  became  Christians. 
Further,  parallels  for  some  of  the  passages  supposed  to 
prove  Jewish  origin  may  be  quoted  from  Epistles  which 
were  certainly  not  written  to  Jews.  Thus  in  1  Cor.  x.  1 
Paul  speaks  of  the  Israehtes  in  the  wilderness  as  '  our 
fathers.'  And  the  reference  to  the  Roman  Christians  as 
men  who  knew  the  law  finds  a  parallel  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  where  Paul  presupposes  a  knowledge  of  the 
law  in  the  Galatian  Christians  who  were  Gentiles.  The 
same  Epistle  also  furnishes  a  parallel  to  the  statement  that 
his  readers  have  died  to  the  Law  :  cf .  Gal.  iv.  1-9  (esp.  w.  5 
and  7),  Col.  ii.  14.  And  the  problem  discussed  in  Rom. 
ix.-xi.  was  not  handled  because  it  was  one  of  special  interest 
to  Jewish  Cliristians.  It  was  forced  on  the  attention  of  all 
who  tried  to  construct  a  philosophy  of  history  on  Paul's 
lines. 

The  positive  proof  of  the  predominantly  Gentile 
composition  of  the  Church  is  very  strong.  There  is  first 
the  intrinsic  improbability  that  Paul  with  his  delicacy 
about  his  apostleship  as  exclusively  to  Gentiles  should  have 
sent  an  elaborate  theological  discussion  to  a  Church  mainly 
composed  of  Jewish  Christians  at  least  without  an  explicit 
defence  of  his  action.  Further,  it  is  difficult  to  explain 
away  the  definite  language  which  seems  to  point  to 
Gentiles  as  his  readers.  He  includes  the  recipients  of  the 
letter  among  the  Gentiles  (i.  5,  6),  wishes  to  have  fruit  in 
them  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Gentiles  (i.  13),  and  gives  as  a 
reason  for  his  readiness  to  preach  the  Gospel  at  Rome 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  Greeks  and  barbarians.  The  life 
of  his  readers  before  conversion  had  been  one  of  lawlessness. 
In  xi.  13,  14  he  calls  his  readers  '  Gentiles  *  and  contrasta 


T.J  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  41 

the  Jews  with  them.  In  xi.  25,  addressing  them  by  the 
general  term  '  brethren,'  he  proceeds  in  a  way  applicable 
only  to  Gentiles.  In  xv.  15  also,  if  this  is  part  of  the 
Epistle,  he  gives  explicitly  as  his  reason  for  writing  that 
he  is  an  apostle  erf  the  Gentiles.  We  can  hardly  be  wrong, 
then,  in  the  conclusion  that  the  Church,  while  including 
Jewish  Christians,  was  in  the  main  a  Gentile  Church. 
That  Paul  should  write  a  letter  announcing  his  intended 
visit  is  quite  natural.  Numerous  attempts  have  been 
made  to  explain  why,  in  view  of  his  intended  visit,  he 
addressed  to  the  Church  this  elaborate  treatment  of  great 
theological  themes,  this  exposition  of  his  Gospel.  A 
discussion  of  these  is  unfortunately  precluded  by  the 
necessary  limits  of  this  book. 

The  integrity  of  the  Epistle  has  been  much  debated. 
Leaving  aside  other  questions  as  to  its  composition  which 
need  not  be  discussed,  the  problem  of  the  concluding 
chapters  has  called  forth  several  solutions.  The  con- 
sideration of  the  phenomena  belongs  partly  to  textual 
criticism,  but  they  must  be  briefly  mentioned,  (a)  The 
benediction  is  no  doubt  rightly  placed  in  xvi.  20b,  but 
some  manuscripts  place  it  between  v.  23  and  v.  25,  while 
some  place  it  at  the  end  of  v.  27.  (b)  In  some  manuscripts 
the  doxology  w.  25-27  is  placed  at  the  end  of  chapter  xiv. 
(c)  Marcion's  copy  of  the  Epistle  apparently  lacked  chapters 
XV.  and  xvi.  Baur  on  grounds  mainly  of  internal  criticism 
considered  that  these  chapters  were  a  spurious  addition. 
This  view  no  longer  finds  acceptance  and  need  not  be 
discussed.  Renan  made  the  ingenious  suggestion  that 
the  main  part  of  the  Epistle  was  sent  to  several  Churches, 
but  with  diJBEerent  endings  in  each  case,  i.-xi.  with  xv.  to  the 
Romans,  i.-xiv.  with  xvi.  1-20  to  the  Ephesians,  i.-xiv.  with 
xvi.  21-24  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  i.-xiv.  with  xvi.  26-27 
to  an  unknown  Church.  The  Epistle  came  to  its  present 
form  through  a  combination  of  these  separate  endings. 
Lightfoot  thought  that  the  Epistle  was  originally  writt^i 


42        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

to  the  Romans  as  we  have  it,  but  ended  at  xvi.  23,  w. 
21-23,  however,  being  a  postscript  added  by  Paul's  com- 
panions. Later  Paul  prepared  the  Epistle  for  wider 
circulation  by  striking  out  the  mention  of  Rom.  i.  7  and 
XV.  and  xvi.,  but  added  the  doxology  xvi.  26-27  at  the 
end  of  xiv.  Later  the  doxology  was  transferred  to  the 
close  of  the  Epistle.  It  may  be  urged  in  favour  of  this 
view  that  the  MS.  G  omits  *  in  Rome  '  both  in  i.  7  and  in 
i.  15.  It  is  difficult  to  think  that  the  omission  can  be 
accidental  in  both  cases,  and  this  favours  the  view,  not  of 
course  as  has  been  suggested  that  the  Epistle  was  not  sent 
to  Rome  at  all,  but  that  copies  had  been  prepared  from 
which  the  local  designation  had  been  eliminated.  Renan's 
theory  accounts  for  the  textual  facts  but  is  unnecessarily 
compUcated.  Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why 
chapters  xii.  and  xiii.  should  be  regarded  as  not  sent  to 
Rome,  for  which  the  latter  in  particular  was  exceptionally 
well  suited.  Moreover,  xv.  cannot  be  separated  from  xiv. 
Lightfoot's  theory  is  less  arbitrary,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
accept  the  view  that  any  edition  of  the  Epistle  which 
contained  chapter  xiv.  did  not  also  contain  xv.  1-13,  which 
continues  the  discussion  of  the  same  subject.  At  the  same 
time  the  textual  facts  favour  the  view  that  abbreviated 
copies  of  the  Epistle  were  in  circulation. 

In  holding  that  xvi.  1-20  went  to  Ephesus  Renan  was 
only  taking  a  view  which,  since  it  was  first  expressed  by 
Schulz  in  1829,  has  met  with  very  wide  acceptance, 
especially  in  recent  times.  How  much  of  chapter  xvi. 
belongs  to  the  letter  to  Ephesus  is  disputed,  whether  it 
included  xvi.  1,  2  or  began  with  xvi.  3,  whether  it  stopped 
with  r.  16  or  r.  21.  It  is  considered  very  improbable  that 
Paul  should  have  known  so  many  persons  in  a  Church 
which  he  had  not  visited,  whereas  in  a  Church  in  which 
he  had  for  a  long  time  laboured  these  greetings  would 
be  quite  natural.  The  reference  to  Prisca  and  Aquila 
points  to  Ephesus.    It  is  true  that  they  had  been  con- 


v.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  4k 

nected  with  a  Church  in  Rome  at  an  eariier  date,  but  they 
were  in  Ephesus  a  little  while  before  this  Epistle  was 
written  (Acts  xviii.  18,  26,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19)  and  later  (2 
Tim.  iv.  19).  It  is  improbable  that  they  should  have  been 
in  Rome  again  in  the  interval.  The  hst  itself  is  thought 
in  some  respects  to  suit  Asia  better  than  Rome,  especially 
the  reference  to  Epaenetus.  Further,  the  warning  in  17-20 
is  surprising  in  a  letter  written  to  a  Church  which  was  not 
personally  known  to  Paul  and  in  which  he  had  no  authority. 
It  is  difficult  to  evade  these  arguments,  and  yet  there  are 
weighty  considerations  on  the  other  side.  It  is  probable 
enough  that  many  of  Paul's  friends  would  be  in  Rome, 
the  capital  of  the  Empire  to  which  all  roads  led,  especially 
as  the  early  Christians  belonged  to  the  social  stratum  in 
which  a  wandering  life  would  be  very  common.  In  the 
next  place  it  may  fairly  be  argued  that  this  long  list  of 
names  is  less  surprising  in  a  letter  to  the  Roman  Church 
than  in  a  letter  to  such  a  Church  as  Ephesus.  Paul's 
method  elsewhere  is  very  instructive.  There  are  no 
salutations  of  individuals  in  either  of  the  letters  to  Corinth, 
in  that  to  the  Galatians,thePhilippians  ortheThessalonians. 
Where  a  salutation  is  given  it  is  of  a  collective  character. 
Prisca  and  Aquila  and  the  house  of  Onesiphorus  are  saluted 
in  2  Timothy,  Philemon  himself  in  the  letter  addressed 
to  him.  In  Colossians,  however,  we  have  a  considerable 
number  of  salutations,  though  in  this  case  they  are  sent 
simply  by  individuals  to  the  collective  community.  It  is 
therefore  very  significant  that  in  the  letters  addressed  by 
Paul  to  Churches  where  he  had  laboured  no  individual 
salutations  are  included,  whereas  a  whole  series  of  individ- 
uals either  sends  or  receives  greetings  in  the  two  Epistles 
sent  to  Churches  where  Paul  had  not  laboured.  If  then 
we  are  to  Judge  by  Paul's  habit,  the  number  of  names 
saluted  points  to  Rome  more  strongly  than  to  Ephesus. 
Paul  naturally  made  the  most  of  every  personal  link  with 
the  Church  he  was  about  to  visit,  and  on  which  for  its  high 


44        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

importance  he  desired  to  bring  all  his  influence  to  bear. 
The  combination  of  names,  so  far  as  the  inscriptional 
evidence  goes,  favours  Rome  rather  than  anywhere  else. 
In  particular,  the  reference  to  those  of  the  household  of 
Aristobulus  and  the  household  of  Narcissus  points  very 
strongly  to  Rome,  both  Narcissus  and  Aristobulus  being 
friends  of  the  Emperor  Claudius.  In  spite  of  the  very 
large  acceptance  which  the  hypothesis  that  the  greetings 
were  sent  to  Ephesus  has  received,  it  is  still  rejected  by 
several  of  the  most  eminent  scholars,  including  Hamack, 
Zahn,  Sanday  and  Headlam,  Denney,  Ramsay  and 
Lietzmann.  If  the  textual  difficulties  connected  with  the 
last  two  chapters  were  relieved  by  the  theory  it  would  be 
an  additional  argument  in  its  favour,  but  that  is  not  the 
case.  The  only  argument  which  causes  the  present 
writer  to  hesitate  is  the  difficulty  of  supposing  Prisca 
and  Aquila  to  have  been  in  Rome  when  the  letter  was 
sent.  But  this  is  outweighed  by  the  difficulty  of  accounting 
for  the  presence  of  this  letter  or  fragment  of  a  letter 
addressed  to  Ephesus  in  an  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
burden  of  proof  lies  on  those  who  would  dislodge  it  from 
its  present  position,  and  the  attempt  to  do  bo  can  hardly 
be  said  to  have  succeeded. 


ri.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  45 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  EPISTLES   OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT 

This  group  of  Epistles  includes  those  to  the  Ephesians, 
Colossians  and  Philemon,  and  that  to  the  Philippians. 
The  first  question  to  be  considered  is  the  place  of  Philip- 
pians in  the  group.  It  is  usually  considered  to  be  the 
latest,  though  Bleek  in  Germany,  and  Lightfoot  followed 
by  several  scholars  in  England,  have  regarded  it  as  the 
earliest.  The  main  argument  is  the  doctrinal  similarity 
of  Philippians  and  Romans,  while  it  is  said  the  other 
Epistles  of  this  group  present  no  such  marked  resemblance 
to  Romans.  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  Philippians 
stands  next  to  Romans  in  point  of  time.  The  argument 
has  been  turned  by  others  against  the  genuineness  of 
Colossians  and  Ephesians.  Thus  Pfleiderer,  arguing  on 
the  hypotiiesis  that  if  all  are  genuine  Philippians  is  the 
latest,  urges  that  the  absence  from  Philippians  of  the 
features  specially  characteristic  of  Colossians  and  Ephes- 
ians simply  proves  that  the  latter  cannot  be  authentic. 
This  objection  is  conclusively  met  if  the  order  advocated 
by  Lightfoot  is  the  true  one.  But  neither  Lightfoot's 
nor  Pfleiderer's  conclusion  is  necessary.  Within  the 
Pauline  literature  itself  analogies  can  be  found  to  support 
the  common  view.  It  is  probable  that  Galatians  is  eariier 
than  Corinthians  and  Romans,  though  here  again,  on  the 
ground  of  doctrinal  and  phraseological  similarity,  Lightfoot 
placed  Galatians  between  Corinthians  and  Romans.  If 
in  spite  of  this  similarity,  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 


46       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

are  interpolated  between  Galatians  and  Romans,  there 
is  no  reason  why  Ephesians,  Colossians  and  Philemon 
should  not  be  placed  between  Romans  and  Philippc'ans. 
So,  too,  we  have  the  best  of  reasons  for  believing  that 
Paul's  theological  system  was  formed  before  any  of  our 
Epistles  were  written,  yet  those  to  the  Thessalonians  do 
not  exhibit  the  peculiarly  Pauline  stamp.  We  cannot 
therefore  defend  the  priority  of  Philippians  on  this  ground. 
It  is  also  argued  that  if  Philippians  had  been  written 
later  than  Colossians,  we  should  have  expected  to  find 
traces  of  the  polemic  against  the  Colossian  heresy  and 
of  that  side  of  truth  by  which  Paul  had  met  it.  But 
this  does  not  follow.  Ephesians,  written  at  the  same  time, 
and  presenting  many  points  of  contact  with  Colossians, 
does  not  refer  to  the  heresy,  or  expound  the  cosmic 
significance  of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Nor  would  Paul 
feel  it  necessary  in  a  letter  to  the  Philippians  to  deal 
with  a  heresy  which  had  not  touched  their  Church.  In 
fact  the  letter  as  originally  planned,  would  probably  have 
been  without  the  polemic  against  the  Judaizers  in  chapter 
iii.  This  is  Lightfoot's  opinion,  and  if  correct  we  should 
have  had  an  Epistle  written  after  the  worst  of  the  struggle 
with  the  Judaizers  was  over,  but  with  little  or  no  reference 
to  it.  Again  it  is  urged  that  we  must  put  Colossians  and 
Ephesians  as  late  as  possible,  because  the  Church  seems  to 
be  in  a  more  advanced  state.  The  false  doctrine  in 
Colossians  and  the  emphasis  on  the  Church  in  Ephesians 
bring  these  Epistles  close  to  the  Pastorals,  with  their 
references  to  heresies  and  developed  ecclesiastical 
organisation.  But  against  this  we  must  set  the  fact  that 
matters  do  not  move  at  the  same  rate  everywhere,  and 
in  the  time  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  they  seem  to  have 
advanced  more  rapidly  in  Ephesus  and  that  district  than 
in  Philippi.  Besides  a  year  at  most  can  lie  between  the 
letters,  an  utterly  negUgible  interval  in  this  connexion. 
Further,  Philippians  was  intended  mainly  as  a  letter  of 


n.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  47 

thanks  for  the  kindness  of  the  Church,  and  warning 
against  dissension  and  ambition.  In  such  an  Epistle 
indications  of  the  stage  of  development  will  not  be  present 
to  anything  like  the  same  extent.  Against  the  parallels 
between  Romans  and  Philippians  we  may  set  striking 
parallels  between  Romans  and  Colossians.  In  favour 
of  the  later  date  of  Philippians  it  may  be  said  that  Paul's 
anticipations  of  a  speedy  decision  on  his  case  are  rather 
more  definite  in  Philippians  and  less  optimistic.  The 
Philippians  had  had  time  to  have  heard  of  the  illness  of 
Epaphroditus,  and  to  have  sent  to  Paul  the  expression 
of  their  anxiety.  Not  much  stress,  however,  can  be  laid 
on  this,  as  no  very  long  time  was  needed  for  the  journey 
between  Rome  and  Philippi.  The  order  generally  adopted 
seems  to  be  most  probable,  and  Philippians  should  be 
dated  last  of  this  group. 

The  Epistles  to  Philemon,  the  Colossians  amd 
the  Ephesians 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  authenticity  of  the 
Epistle  to  Philemon,  for  although  this  has  been  disputed 
it  is  now  amply  recognised  on  all  hands.  It  was  included 
in  the  Canon  of  Marcion  and  the  Muratorian  Canon,  and 
the  absence  of  reference  to  it  by  many  early  Christian 
writers  is  fully  accounted  for  by  its  untheological  character. 
The  internal  evidence  is  decisive.  No  one  could  have 
imitated  Paul  in  so  inimitable  a  way,  nor  could  any  plau- 
sible reason  be  assigned  for  its  composition  in  Paul's 
name.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  its  genuineness 
would  not  have  been  disputed  had  it  not  been  for  its 
connexion  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  Instead, 
however,  of  using  the  spuriousness  of  Colossians  to  dis- 
credit Philemon,  we  should  regard  the  unquestionable 
genuineness  of  Philemon  as  a  guarantee  for  the  authenticity 
of  Colossians.    The  two  letters  were  written  at  the  same 


48       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

time  and  sent  by  the  same  messenger.  Usually  it  ie 
thought  that  the  letters  were  sent  from  Rome.  Since  Paul 
was  a  prisoner  at  the  time,  the  only  reasonable  alternatives 
are  Rome  or  Caesarea.  It  is  practically  certain  that 
Philippians  was  written  at  Rome.  This  is  suggested  by 
the  reference  to  the  praetorian  guard  and  the  Christians  in 
Caesar's  household,  and  also  by  the  fact  that  Paul  antici- 
pates that  his  case  will  soon  be  settled.  This  he  could 
not  have  done  at  Caesarea  since  he  appealed  to  Caesar  and 
therefore  knew  that  he  must  be  sent  to  Rome.  Now  if 
we  could  make  Philippians  the  earliest  of  the  imprisonment 
Epistles,  this  would  carry  with  it  the  inference  that  Philemon 
and  Colossians  must  have  been  written  at  Rome  rather 
than  Caesarea.  Since,  however,  we  have  accepted  the 
reverse  order,  we  cannot  use  the  place  of  Phihppians  to 
determine  that  of  the  other  Epistles.  Nevertheless  they 
were  probably  written  from  Rome.  We  cannot  infer 
from  the  difference  between  these  Epistles  and  Philippians 
that  they  must  be  more  widely  separated  in  time  than  the 
hypothesis  of  Roman  origin  for  all  of  them  will  permit. 
Nor  does  the  argument  that  Paul  speaks  in  Philippians 
of  going  to  Macedonia  on  his  release,  but  in  Philemon  of 
visiting  Colossae,  prove  that  the  letters  cannot  have  been 
written  from  the  same  place.  Paul's  plans  altered  with 
the  circumstances,  as  his  correspondence  with  Corinth 
illustrates,  and  why  should  he  not  have  visited  one  Church 
on  his  way  to  the  other  ?  Caesarea  was  a  most  unlikely 
place  for  a  runaway  slave  from  Colossae  to  visit.  It  is 
far  more  probable  that  Onesimus  should  have  tried  to 
lose  himself  in  Rome,  which  though  farther  away,  was 
more  easily  reached.  Moreover,  Philemon  could  as  little 
as  Philippians  have  been  written  in  the  later  part  of 
Paul's  captivity  at  Caesarea,  since  the  expectation  of 
release  expressed  in  both  is  incompatible  with  his  appeal 
to  Caesar.  But  neither  does  it  suit  the  early  part  of  hia 
captivity  there,  for  that  he  should  delay  his  long-projected 


n.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPKISONMENT  49 

visit  to  Rome  in  order  to  visit  the  Churches  on  the  Lycas 
is  highly  improbable,  especially  in  view  of  the  foreboding 
expressed  in  Acts  xx.  25.  And  how  are  we  to  understand 
Paul's  silence  about  Philip,  who  had  shortly  before 
entertained  him,  and  his  failure  to  enumerate  him  among 
the  few  Jewish  Christians  who  were  his  fellow- workers  ? 
We  may  then  confidently  suppose  that  none  of  the  Epistles 
of  this  group  was  sent  from  Caesarea. 

Although  the  authenticity  of  Colossians^  has  been 
doubted  not  simply  by  the  Tiibingen  school  but  by  several 
other  critics,  it  is  now  accepted  by  the  majority  even  of 
radical  critics,  though  still  rejected  by  some,  for  example 
Schmiedel.  It  was  included  in  the  Canon  of  Marcion, 
and  it  is  mentioned  by  name  in  the  Muratorian  Canon  and 
by  Irenaeus.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  employed 
by  Justin  Martyr  and  Theophilus,  possibly  also  by  some 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  It  is  no  deficiency  in  external 
evidence  but  the  internal  characteristics  of  the  Epistle 
which  have  caused  its  genuineness  to  be  assailed.  The 
absence  of  the  more  conspicuous  phrases  of  Paulinism 
and  the  retirement  into  the  background  of  the  chief 
Pauline  ideas  has  been  alleged  as  an  objection,  though  it 
is  clear  that  when  the  controversy  which  gave  them 
prominence  had  passed  away,  they  would  be  likely  to  lose 
such  prominence,  nor  is  it  reasonable  to  insist  that  Paul 
must  have  written  all  his  letters  on  the  same  model  as 
those  of  the  second  group.  It  has  also  been  objected  that 
the  conception  of  the  Person  of  Christ  is  not  Pauline, 
for  while  Paul  viewed  Christ  as  the  Redeemer,  Colossians 
places  Him  in  a  transcendental  relation  to  the  universe, 
of  which  He  is  represented  not  simply  as  the  Creator 
but  the  goal.  But  this  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  1  Cor. 
viii.  6,  XV.  24-28  in  an  undeveloped  though  essentially 
id^itical  form,  nor  can  the  high  doctrine  of  the  Person 

^  For  a  fuller  discassion  of  the  critical  problems  of  Colossians  the  writti 
nay  refer  to  his  commentarj  in  the  ExpotUoi**  Greek  Testament,  toL  iU. 

D 


60       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

of  Christ  constitute  an  objection  for  any  who  accept  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  The  emphasis  placed  on  the 
cosmical  significance  of  the  Person  of  Christ  is  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  this  was  the  best  defence  against  the 
false  doctrine  which  Paul  was  attacking.  Nor  can  there 
be  any  vaUd  objection  drawn  from  the  mention  of  the 
hierarchies  of  angels,  since  if  such  were  recognised  by  the 
false  teachers  it  would  have  been  unwise  for  Paul  to  have 
omitted  to  speak  of  them.  Moreover,  there  are  references 
in  the  undoubted  Epistles,  which  harmonise  well  with 
what  is  said  of  angels  in  Colossians. 

It  is,  however,  the  very  fact  that  this  heresy  is 
attacked  which  has  been  urged  with  greatest  force 
against  the  Pauline  authorship.  It  is  asserted  that  this 
heresy  belongs  to  the  post-apostolic  period.  But  it 
may  be  said  in  reply  that  the  type  of  heresy  is  rudi- 
mentary, such  as  may  well  have  originated  at  Colossae 
by  a  fusion  of  Christianity  with  some  one  or  more  of 
the  prevalent  speculative  systems.  And  no  weight  can 
be  attached  to  the  mere  argument  that  this  heresy 
existed  in  the  post-apostolio  period.  Even  if  tiiis  could 
be  proved,  more  would  be  required  to  invahdate  the 
authenticity  of  the  Epistle.  It  would  have  to  be  shown 
that  the  heresy  really  originated  later  than  the  time  of 
Paul.  But  we  have  no  evidence  for  this,  and  there  are 
strong  probabilities,  quite  apart  from  this  Epistle,  that 
the  contrary  is  really  the  case.  It  is  not  second-century 
Gnosticism  which  is  attacked,  probably  it  is  not  Gnosticism 
at  all.  The  differences  of  style  between  this  Epistle  and 
those  of  the  preceding  group  have  also  been  urged  against 
its  genuineness.  There  are  such  differences.  The  style 
of  Colossians  is  slow  and  laboured,  without  the  swift  and 
rushing  movement  of  the  earlier  polemical  Epistles, 
differing  from  them  also  in  its  form  of  argument  and  its 
choice  of  logical  particles.  Synonyms  are  accumulated 
and  clauses  built  up  by  curious  combinations  of  words. 


VI.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  61 

There  is  a  fondness  for  long  compound  words,  many  of 
which  occur  nowhere  else  in  Paul,  many  but  seldom.  A 
large  proportion  is  to  be  found  in  the  second  chapter, 
where  the  pecuharity  of  the  subject  matter  largely  accounts 
for  the  peculiarity  of  the  diction.  Here  again  it  is  legiti- 
mate to  fall  back  on  the  difference  in  the  circumstances 
both  of  Paul  and  his  readers,  and  the  difference  in  Paul's 
own  state  of  mind.  The  four  great  Epistles  are  scarcely 
normal,  they  are  written  rapidly  while  the  controversy  is 
at  its  height,  and  Paul  feels  that  he  is  fighting  for  the  very 
existence  of  the  Gospel.  This  letter  is  written  in  the  calm 
of  enforced  retirement,  and  if  it  is  controversial,  the  kind 
of  controversy  required  is  different. 

The  points  of  contact  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesiana 
have  also  been  regarded  as  suspicious.  But  this  would 
not,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  condemn  both 
Epistles  as  spurious,  but  only  the  one  which  displayed 
the  secondary  form,  since  the  fact  that  the  original  was 
imitated  in  a  letter  put  forward  as  Paul's  would  go  to 
prove  that  this  original  was  really  his.  But  the  relation 
between  the  two  Epistles  is  more  peculiar.  It  is  not  the 
case  that  one  exhibits  throughout  the  more  primitive 
form.  Sometimes  Colossians  seems  to  do  so,  sometimes 
Ephesians.  Holtzmann  was  led  to  this  result  through  a 
very  detailed  and  elaborate  investigation.  To  account 
for  this  he  put  forward  the  following  theory.  A  letter  was 
written  by  Paul  to  the  Colossians,  and  this  letter  is 
embedded  in  our  Epistle.  On  the  basis  of  this  letter  a 
later  writer  composed  our  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  He 
was  unwilling  that  Paul's  original  letter  should  lose  the 
benefit  of  this,  so  he  interpolated  into  it  passages  from 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and  also  passages  directed 
against  Gnosticism,  and  thus  produced  our  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians. 

By  this  hypothesis  Holtzmann  accounted  for  the  pheno« 
menon  referred  to  that  now  one  and  now  the  other  Epistk 


68       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

presented  the  original  Jorm.  The  complexity  of  the 
hypothesis  tells  fatally  against  it.  It  is  almost  incredible 
that  any  writer  should  set  to  work  on  this  method. 
Assuming  that  he  had  a  much  shorter  Colossians  before 
him,  we  could  understand  his  attempt  to  construct  a  new 
Epistle  on  the  basis  of  it,  though  it  would  not  be  easy  to 
explain  why  he  did  not  draw  also  on  the  other  Pauline 
Epistles.  But  that  he  should  return  to  give  the  original 
epistle  the  benefit  of  his  own  contributions  to  Ephesians 
is  hardly  to  be  credited.  What  practical  purpose  could 
be  served  by  this  expansion  ?  He  had  already  secured 
by  the  composition  of  Ephesians  the  publication  of  these 
thoughts.  And  what  a  hazardous  enterprise  to  substitute 
the  new  Colossians  for  the  epistle  which  was  well  known 
to  the  Church  at  Colossae !  And  why  not  have  said  all  he 
wanted  to  say  in  one  letter,  our  Ephesians  expanded  by 
attacks  on  the  false  teachers  ?  Moreover,  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  textual  history  of  the  process  through  which 
Holtzmann  imagines  that  the  literature  has  gone.  His 
theory  was  very  carefully  examined  by  Von  Soden,  who 
showed  that  many  of  the  passages  condemned  by  Holtzmann 
as  interpolations  were  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  a  Pauline 
authorship.  He  also  showed  that  Holtzmann's  recon- 
struction of  the  original  Epistle  was  open  to  serious  objec- 
tions. He  himself  rejected  the  following  only :  i.  15-20, 
ii.  10,  15,  18b.  But  at  a  later  time  he  accepted  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  almost  as  it  stands,  though  he 
has  recently  returned  to  his  rejection  of  i.  15-20.  The 
genuineness  of  Colossians  has  important  consequences  for 
Ephesians,  since  if  Holtzmann  is  right  in  asserting  that 
several  parallel  passages  do  not  depend  on  Colossians, 
we  are  shut  up  to  the  view  that  both  Epistles  came  from 
the  same  hand,  and  that  the  hand  of  Paul.  In  such  a 
case  we  can  hardly  speak  of  secondary  or  derived  passages, 
as  we  should  if  two  authors  were  concerned.  But  in  any 
cftse  we  may  feel  some  confidence  that  the  authenticity  of 


▼1.1  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  69 

Colossians  will  come  to  be  accepted  in  the  near  fattire  by 
general  consent. 

The  authenticity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  has  been 
much  more  widely  denied  than  that  of  the  sister  Epistle, 
and  is  still  rejected  by  many  eminent  critics.  The  external 
evidence  is  good.  It  was  probably  used  by  Ignatius  and 
Polycarp  and  the  author  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
though  this  of  course  would  be  consistent  with  a  date 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  It  was  iocluded 
by  Marcion  in  his  collection,  and  is  mentioned  in  the 
Muratorian  Canon.  It  is  quoted  as  Paul's  by  Irenaeus 
and  later  writers.  Moreover,  it  is  hkely  that  it  was  em- 
ployed by  the  author  of  1  Peter,  which  is  probably  the 
genuine  work  of  that  writer.  In  that  case  our  Epistle 
must  be  genuine.  If  1  Peter  belongs  to  the  reign  of 
Domitian  or  Trajan,  or  if  the  Uterary  relation  between  the 
two  Epistles  should  be  reversed,  we  cannot  argue  so  con- 
fidently from  their  connexion  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Epistle. 

If  genuine,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  Epistle 
was  not  sent  to  Ephesus,  at  any  rate  exclusively.  It 
would  be  incredible  that  in  a  letter  to  a  Church  where  he 
had  laboured  so  long  and  to  which  he  was  boimd  by  such 
ties  of  affection,  Paul  should  abstain  from  personal  greeting 
or  reminiscences  of  his  work  in  Ephesus  and  should  give 
no  sign  of  intimate  personal  relations  with  his  readers. 
It  would  be  still  more  strange  that  he  should  speak  as  in 
iii.  2-4  as  if  their  knowledge  of  his  ministry  was  only  by 
hearsay,  and  his  own  knowledge  of  their  faith  was  of  a 
similar  character  (i.  15).  In  fact  if  Wb  had  to  believe  that 
the  letter  if  Pauline  must  have  been  sent  to  Ephesus,  this 
would  strongly  reinforce  the  already  serious  arguments 
against  its  authenticity.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case. 
It  is  true  that  the  title  '  to  the  Ephesians '  was  given  to 
the  Epistle  quite  early,  and  that  tradition  regarded  it  as 
addressed  to  that  Church.    But  Marcion  spoke  of  it  as 


64       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      foH. 

the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  which  may  of  course  have 
been  a  critical  deduction  from  the  reference  in  Col.  iv.  16 
to  the  Epistle  from  Laodicea,but  may  point  to  acquaintance 
with  a  copy  of  the  Epistle  bearing  that  title.  If  the  words 
*  in  Ephesus '  in  i.  1  are  original,  we  should  be  obHged  to 
accept  the  traditional  theory  of  the  destination.  They 
are  omitted,  however,  by  our  two  best  manuscripts  n  and  B, 
and  struck  out  by  the  corrector  of  67,  who  has  preserved 
many  old  readings.  They  were  not  read  by  Origen,  and 
Basil  says  that  all  the  old  copies  did  not  contain  them. 
Tertullian  charges  Marcion  with  falsifying  the  title ;  it  is 
therefore  clear  that  he  did  not  himself  read  '  in  Ephesus  * 
in  the  text  or  he  would  have  appealed  to  this.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  may  be  urged  that  it  is  in  all  other  MSS.  and 
Versions  and  supported  by  the  majority  of  the  Fathers. 

The  omission  of  the  words  also  creates  a  serious  difficulty. 
On  the  usual  theory  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  several 
Churches  which  harmonises  well  with  its  general  character 
and  the  double  title,  it  is  frequently  assumed  that  a  blank 
was  left  in  the  copies  to  be  j&lled  with  the  name  of  the 
Church  to  which  any  copy  was  delivered.  It  is  in  that 
case  remarkable  that  the  oldest  authorities  mention  no 
place  at  all.  We  should  have  expected  various  readings 
but  not  complete  omission.  It  is  nevertheless  not  easy 
to  believe  that  the  original  text  was  identical  with  the 
usual  text  save  for  the  omission  of  *  in  Ephesus.'  The 
best  translation  of  such  a  text  would  be  '  to  the  saints  who 
are  also  beheving  (or  faithful)  in  Christ  Jesus.'  But  this 
implies  that  there  might  be  saints  who  were  not  believers. 
P.  Ewald  suggests  that  there  may  be  an  error  in  the 
text,  due  to  wearing  of  the  papyrus  at  the  comer.  He 
reads  rot?  dyairrjTots  for  Tois  dytois  rots,  *  to  those  who 
are  beloved  and  beheving.'  The  hypothesis  of  a  circular 
letter  best  accounts  for  its  general  character,  for  the 
absence  of  personal  salutations  and  the  discussion  of  local 
problems.    If  so,  it  may  be  identical  with  the  letter  from 


Ti.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  66 

ftaodicea  (Col.  iv.  16),  though  this  is  uncertain.  It  is  on 
the  whole  prohable  that  Ephesus  was  included  among 
the  Churches  to  which  it  was  addressed.  This  would  beet 
account  for  the  fact  that  it  passed  into  circulation  as  an 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 

But  while  the  hypothesis  of  a  circular  letter  escapes 
some  of  the  objections  to  the  authenticity,  several  still 
remain.  The  most  serious  is  that  based  on  the  style. 
The  sentences  are  long,  cumbrous  and  involved  to  a  degree 
unparalleled  elsewhere  in  Paul.  The  collocation  of  words 
and  clauses  creates  innumerable  ambiguities,  which 
involve  the  exegesis  of  the  Epistle  in  constant  uncertainty. 
The  ideas  are  also  thought  to  be  in  some  instances  un- 
Pauline.  Redemption  is  assigned  to  Christ  rather  than 
to  God;  reconciliation  is  explained  as  uniting  Jew  and 
Gentile,  not  God  and  man.  The  Second  Coming  is  no 
longer  expected  in  the  near  future ;  on  the  contrary,  Paul 
speaks  of  the  ages  which  are  to  come.  The  conception 
of  the  Church  has  advanced  in  a  Catholic  direction. 
Montanist  tendencies  were  at  one  time  discovered  in  it, 
and  though  these  can  no  longer  be  taken  seriously,  several 
consider  that  there  are  references  to  Gnosticism. 
Difficulty  is  occasioned  by  the  association  of  the  other 
apostles  with  Paul  in  the  revelation  of  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles  and  particularly  in  the  objective  reference  to 
'  the  holy  apostles  and  prophets  '  (iii.  5  and  6).  Finally, 
the  relations  with  Colossians  have  much  more  frequently 
been  urged  against  the  genuineness  of  this  than  of  the 
companion  Epistle  from  the  time  when  De  Wette  stig- 
matised it  as  a  diffuse  expansion  of  Colossians  which  had 
lost  its  unity  through  the  omission  of  the  polemic  against 
the  false  teachers. 

The  weightiest  objection  is  the  un-Pauline  character  of 
the  siyle.  It  is  true  that  the  force  of  this  argument  is 
broken  for  all  who  accept  the  genuineness  of  Colossians  by 
the  similar  phenomena  which  constitute  a  link  between 


66       INTKODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

this  and  the  other  letters.  We  must  also  allow  for  the 
influence  of  enforced  inactivity,  but  though  these  con- 
siderations mitigate  the  difl&culty,  they  cannot  be  said 
entirely  to  remove  it.  There  is  no  necessary  antagonism 
between  the  ascription  of  redemption  to  Christ  and  its 
ascription  to  God.  Similar  statements  in  other  connexions 
may  be  quoted  from  the  undoubted  Epistles.  Thus  in 
Rom.  xi.  36  all  things  are  through  God,  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6 
all  are  through  Christ.  Reconciliation  between  Jew  and 
Gentile  does  not  exclude  reconciliation  to  God,  which  in 
fact  is  expressed  in  ii.  16.  The  ages  to  come  may  very 
well  be  considered  as  following  the  Parousia  rather  than 
as  preceding  it.  We  have  no  ground  for  the  assumption 
that  the  conception  of  the  Catholic  Church  must  have 
been  later  than  Paul,  indeed  it  is  quite  in  a  line  both  with 
his  thought  and  action.  His  attempt  to  keep  the  Churches 
together  expressed  in  the  collection  for  the  saints  at 
Jerusalem,  his  feeling  that  local  idiosyncrasies  must  be 
curbed  by  the  general  practice  of  the  Church  (1  Cor.  xiv. 
33,  36),  his  imperiaUst  instincts  which  had  controlled  his 
missionary  activity  and  which  were  nowhere  so  likely 
to  find  expression  as  in  Rome,  all  urged  him  in  this 
direction.  Nor  was  the  idea  wholly  a  new  one.  Gal.  i.  13, 
1  Cor.  X.  32,  xii.  28  speak  of  the  Church  apparently  in  the 
universal  and  not  in  the  local  sense.  Paul  was  strongly 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  unity,  and  would  check 
a  spirit  of  exclusiveness  whether  it  came  from  Gentile  or 
from  Jew. 

As  to  traces  of  Gnosticism  it  may  be  said,  that  if 
they  are  not  present  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  we 
need  not  look  for  them  here,  but  if  they  are  to  be  found 
in  this  Epistle,  this  no  more  proves  its  spuriousness  than 
it  does  that  of  Colossians.  It  is  certainly  remarkable  that 
Paul  should  associate  the  other  apostles  with  himself  &a 
recipients  of  the  revelation  that  the  Gentiles  were  fellow- 
heirs  with  the  Jews.    Yet  he  certainly  associated  them 


VI.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  67 

with  himself  in  the  general  Gospel  that  he  preached 
(1  Cor.  XV.  11).  He  had  won  them  to  his  side  in  his 
conflict  for  the  Gentiles ;  the  case  of  ComeUus  might  seem 
to  warrant  the  strict  accuracy  of  the  statement.  It  is  no 
doubt  difficult  to  beUeve  that  Paul  could  have  spoken  of 
'  the  holy  apostles,'  which  sounds  like  the  reverential 
designation  of  a  later  writer,  especially  as  he  included 
himself  among  them.  We  must  remember,  however, 
that  the  term  does  not  carry  with  it  the  associations  of 
our  English  word,  it  is  not  a  claim  to  saintliness  so  much 
as  a  recognition  of  dedication.  We  might  of  course 
regard  the  adjective  as  a  later  addition,  though  we  should 
have  expected  it  to  have  been  inserted  in  other  places  as 
well.  The  relationship  to  Colossians,  as  already  pointed 
out,  when  considered  in  the  light  of  Holtzmann's  investiga- 
tion, tells  rather  in  favour  of  than  against  the  authenticity 
of  the  Epistle.  The  expUcit  and  repeated  claims  to 
Pauline  authorship  must  be  seriously  respected,  and 
cannot  be  set  aside  except  for  grave  reasons.  It  is  true 
that  a  measure  of  doubt  hangs  over  the  Epistle,  yet  there 
is  much  to  be  said  on  the  other  side.  It  is  more  probable 
that  so  great  an  Epistle  expressing  in  many  respects 
Paul's  mind  so  well  should  be  attributed  to  him  rather 
than  to  another.  The  case  for  its  spuriousness  has  not 
been  made  out,  and  till  that  is  done  it  is  safer  to  accept 
Its  genuineness. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 

This  Epistle  is  so  generally  recognised  as  authentic, 
even  by  radical  critics,  that  Httle  need  be  said  about  it. 
It  was,  of  course,  rejected  by  Baur  and  the  earlier  members 
of  the  Tiibingen  school  with  the  exception  of  Hilgenfeld, 
who  has  been  followed  by  most  recent  critics,  apart  from 
Holsten  and  one  or  two  others.  Baur  objected  to  it  on 
rarious  grounds,  all  of  which  were  frivolous.    The  mention 


68       INTKODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [o* 

of  bishops  and  deacons  pointed  to  a  post-Pauline  stage  ol 
ecclesiastical  organisation,  there  was  no  originaUty  in  thft 
letter,  it  showed  traces  of  something  like  Gnosticism, 
and  the  doctine  of  justification  was  not  that  of  Paul. 
Clement  is  identified  with  the  Roman  Clement,  the  disciple 
of  Peter,  and  thus  the  Epistle  shows  the  union  of  the 
Pauline  and  Petrine  parties  which  were  supposed  to  be 
typified  by  the  two  women  whom  Paul  exhorts  to  be  of 
the  same  mind  in  the  Lord.  That  the  Epistle,  however, 
did  not  suit  the  conciliatory  function  thus  ascribed  to  it 
by  Baur,  is  shown  clearly  enough  by  the  strong  attack 
on  the  Judaizers  in  ch.  iii.  Nor  could  the  numerous 
personal  notices  be  readily  accommodated  to  the  idea  of 
a  tendency  writing. 

Holsten  thinks  the  Epistle  was  written  soon  after 
Paul's  death.  His  argument  against  the  genuineness 
reete  largely  on  the  divergence  between  its  doctrine 
and  that  of  Paul,  which  he  thinks  he  has  discovered. 
But  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  claim  to  have  been 
blameless  in  (outward)  fulfilment  of  the  Law's  command 
(iii.  6)  and  the  confession  of  failure  to  attain  inward 
conformity  to  the  Law  which  we  find  in  Rom.  vii.  Nor 
does  Paul  acquiesce  in  preaching  (i.  15-18)  which  had  in 
Galatians  drawn  down  his  solemn  anathema.  It  is  no 
doubt  true  that  the  Christology  is  more  developed  than 
in  the  four  great  Epistles,  yet  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  them, 
and  does  not  go  beyond  what  they  imply.  It  may  be 
gravely  doubted  whether  Paul  would  have  recognised  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  heavenly  man,  which  is  con- 
stantly imputed  to  him,  but  if  he  had,  he  might  still  have 
spoken  of  the  Incarnation  as  in  ii.  5-8.  Nor  is  there  any 
disagreement  between  the  doctrine  of  Justification  as 
exhibited  here  and  as  shown  in  the  four  great  Epistles. 
As  for  the  style,  that  again  has  httle  weight,  imless  the 
Epistles  of  the  second  group  are  made  a  standard  to  which 
all  Epistles  of  the  apostle  in  order  to  be  counted  genninft 


ti.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  THE  IMPRISONMENT  60 

must  conform.  And  with  what  hope  of  success  could 
the  writer  attempt  to  palm  off  a  spurious  letter  on  the 
Philippian  Church,  soon  after  Paul's  death  ?  The  external 
evidence  is  good.  It  was  apparently  used  by  Ignatius 
and  is  referred  to  by  Polycarp.  It  was  in  Marcion's 
Canon,  and  is  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian  Canon.  It 
is  quoted  in  the  letter  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne, 
and  from  Irenaeus  onwards  it  is  regularly  quoted  as  Paul's. 
Few  things  in  modem  criticism  are  better  assured  than 
the  authenticity  of  this  Epistle,  and  it  m»y  be  accepted 
without  any  misgi¥iag. 


60       INTKODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [cK 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES 

Undkr  this  title  are  included  the  two  Epistles  to  Timothy 
and  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  These  Epistles  are  rejected 
by  critics  more  universally  than  any  other  of  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  and  many  would  regard  their  spuriousness  as 
placed  beyond  question.  This  decision  is  not  reached 
on  the  external  evidence,  which  is  perhaps  as  early  in 
attestation  as  can  be  rea-sonably  expected.  They  are 
included  in  the  Muratorian  Canon,  and  quoted  by  Irenaeus 
and  later  writers  as  Paul's.  Their  existence  in  some 
form  early  in  the  second  century  is  attested  by  quotations 
in  Polycarp.  On  the  other  hand,  Marcion  did  not  admit 
them  to  his  Canon.  This  has  been  attributed  to  dislil^e 
of  their  contents,  and  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  he  could 
not  have  accepted  the  condemnation  of  asceticism  and 
docetism  which  they  contain  or  the  estimate  placed  on 
the  Jewish  Scriptures.  But  similar  contradictions  of 
Marcion's  doctrine  are  to  be  found  in  Epistles  which 
he  accepted,  and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  he  should  have 
hesitated  in  this  case  any  more  than  in  others  to  assume 
that  the  original  writing  had  been  falsified  by  interpola- 
tions and  include  them  in  an  expurgated  form  in  his 
Canon.  We  are  therefore  not  at  Ubcrty  to  brush  aside 
his  dissent  as  based  on  dogmatic  rather  than  historical 
grounds ;  one  to  whom  Paul's  lightest  genuine  word  was 
BO  precious  must,  if  he  knew  the  letters,  even  though 
letters  to  individuals  not  to  Churches,  have  weighed  their 


▼II.]  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  81 

genuiDeness  and  found  it  wanting,  not  wholly  one  may 
believe  on  subjective  grounds.  But  the  internal  evidence 
is  regarded  as  decisive.  And  this  has  been  felt  so  strongly 
that  they  have  been  condemned  as  spurious,  not  simply 
by  the  Tiibingen  school  and  practically  all  advanced 
critics,  but  by  critics  who  may  be  commonly  reckoned  on 
the  conservative  side.  Schleiermacher  and  even  Neander 
rejected  1  Timothy.  Meyer,  Beyschlag  and  Sabatier 
rejected  aU  three.  Even  those  scholars  who  accept  their 
authenticity  as  Godet,  Hort,  Sanday,  admit  that  tiie 
objections  are  real. 

The  first  objection  which  may  be  taken  is  that  the 
Epistles  cannot  be  assigned  to  any  period  of  the  apostle's 
life  otherwise  known  to  us.  It  is  now  generally  agreed, 
though  a  few  scholars  still  maintain  the  contrary,  that 
the  attempts  to  place  them  in  the  period  covered  by 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  have  not  succeeded,  and  that 
if  they  are  genuine,  they  must  be  dated  after  Paul  had 
been  released  from  the  imprisonment  recorded  in  Acts. 
This  resolves  itself  into  the  question  whether  Paul  was 
released.  If  he  was  not  released  the  Epistles  as  they 
stand  cannot  be  genuine;  if  he  was  they  need  not  be. 
A  famous  passage  in  Clement  of  Rome  (chap,  v.)  has  been 
interpreted  as  favouring  the  view  that  Paul  visited  Spain. 
This  would  involve  his  release  from  imprisonment,  as  he 
certainly  had  not  been  to  Spain  before  it.  But  it  is 
questionable  if  Clement's  language  means  this.  For 
while  the  phrase  '  having  come  to  the  bound  of  the  West ' 
itrongly  suggests  Spain  rather  than  Rome  when  taken  by 
itself,  this  is  neutraUsed  by  the  words  which  follow,  *  and 
having  witnessed  before  the  rulers,  he  departed  thus 
from  the  world,'  which  evidently  refer  to  the  Roman 
imprisonment,  and  therefore  fix  '  the  bound  of  the  West  * 
as  Rome  rather  than  Spain.  Further,  Clement  seems  to 
date  Paul's  death  before  the  Neronian  persecution,  for 
he  says  that  a  great  multitude  was   gathered    to  Peter 


6f        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [cH. 

and  Paul,  referring  to  the  martyrs  who  suffered  under 
Nero. 

It  has  also  been  urged  that  if  Paul  was  not  released  the 
Book  of  Acts  ends  very  strangely.  But  to  this  it  may 
be  repUed  that  if  he  was  released,  it  ends  more  strangely 
still.  A  leading  feature  in  the  Acts  is  the  way  in  which 
the  author  constantly  brings  out  the  favour  shown  by  the 
Roman  governors  and  ofl&cials  towards  Christianity. 
If  he  had  been  able  to  end  his  work  with  the  statement 
that  Paul's  trial  before  the  Roman  Emperor  had  issued 
in  his  triumphant  acquittal,  the  apology  for  Christianity 
to  the  Roman  Empire  would  have  received  a  splendid 
climax.  Nor  is  this  met  by  the  argument  that  in  any  case 
Paul  was  finally  condemned  by  the  Emperor.  For  the 
answer  to  this  was  that  in  Nero's  better  days  he  had  been 
acquitted,  and  condemned  only  in  the  later  period  of 
misgovemment.  The  fact  that  this  climax  is  not  found 
is  in  itself  almost  decisive  against  the  hypothesis  of  release. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  prediction  of  Paul  in  his  address 
to  the  elders  at  Miletus,  that  they  should  see  his  face  no 
more.  For,  while  Paul  may  have  uttered  a  foreboding 
which  was  falsified  by  the  events,  and  was  in  fact  latei 
contradicted  by  him  in  his  expectation  of  release  from 
imprisonment,  we  have  to  remember  that  Luke  not  only 
includes  it  in  his  account  of  the  speech,  but  pointedly 
calls  attention  to  it,  with  no  hint  that  they  did  see  him 
again  after  all.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  we  can  account 
for  Luke's  stopping  where  he  does  on  the  hypothesis  that 
he  intended  to  add  a  third  book  to  his  history,  giving  a 
narrative  of  Paul's  trial  and  release  and  subsequent  career. 
He  can  hardly  have  broken  off  in  the  middle  of  the  story 
of  the  imprisonment.  On  the  other  hand,  assuming  th&t 
Paul  was  not  released,  the  author  has  closed  the  story  in 
the  most  skilful  manner,  emphasising  that  for  two  full 
years  Paul  was  in  his  own  hired  lodging,  receiving  all 
who  came  to  him,  preaching  the  Eangdom  of  God   and 


Tig  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  « 

teaching  the  things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  all  freedom  without  any  hindrance.  This  conclusion 
leaves  the  reader  with  the  impression  that  while  a  prisoner 
in  Rome,  under  the  eye  of  the  Imperial  government  itself, 
Paul  was  allowed  the  utmost  possible  hberty  in  preaching 
the  Gospel,  and  had  to  submit  to  no  interference  from  the 
authorities.  A  plea  for  toleration  could  scarcely  be  more 
happily  conceived.  It  has  been  argued  that  according 
to  Roman  Law  at  the  time  Paul  must  have  been  released. 
But  Paul  was  probably  not  put  to  death  as  a  Christian, 
but  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace.  However  innocent  he 
might  be,  the  fact  that  his  presence  had  caused  numerous 
disturbances  in  various  parts  of  the  Empire,  would  at  any 
time  have  been  held  sufficient  reason  for  his  execution. 
Perhaps  we  might  adduce  the  Pastoral  Epistles  them- 
selves as  evidence  for  his  release.  If  they  are  genuiue  Paul 
must  have  been  released,  if  spurious  the  author  or  authors 
by  placiog  them  oatside  the  period  covered  by  the  Acts 
testified  to  a  behef  that  Paul's  life  did  not  end  with  the 
imprisonment  then  recorded.  But  stress  cannot  be  laid 
on  this,  for  writers  of  spurious  hterature  did  not  as  a  rule 
trouble  themselves  too  minutely  about  considerations  of 
this  kind. 

Difficulties  are  also  alleged  as  to  the  personal  and  other 
details  mentioned  in  the  Epistles.  That  Timothy  is  still 
spoken  of  as  young  is  not  unnatural  in  the  mouth  of  Paul, 
considering  the  relations  which  had  subsisted  between  them. 
What  is  strange,  however,  is  that  Paul  after  leaving 
Timothy  and  Titus  should  have  felt  it  necessary  to  write 
these  elaborate  instructions  to  them,  which  might  Just  as 
well  have  been  given  while  he  was  with  them.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  letters  would  be  valuable  for  purposes  of 
reference,  and  that  Paul  knowiag  the  failings  of  Timothy 
would  feel  that  a  letter  such  as  1  Timothy  would  be  useful 
to  him  in  enforcing  discipline,  since  he  could,  if  necessary, 
show  it  to  any  who  might  be  disposed  to  question  bia 


64        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

action.  This  may  pass  as  an  explanation,  though  it 
can  hardly  be  called  satisfactory,  and  this  objection 
must  be  left  to  weigh  against  the  genuineness.  It  also 
seems  strange  that  in  a  letter  to  Timothy,  his  chosen  helper, 
who  had  been  with  him  so  long,  Paul  should  need  to 
assure  him  in  such  strong  language  as  is  used,  that  he  was 
a  preacher  and  an  apostle,  and  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles 
(1  Tim.  ii.  7  ;  cf .  2  Tim.  i.  11).  It  is  urged  on  the  other 
hand  that  Paul  was  writing  to  the  Churches  indirectly, 
and  that  this  might  be  meant  for  them.  This  possibly 
mitigates  the  difficulty,  it  certainly  does  not  remove  it, 
and  it  also  must  stand  as  a  real  objection.  We  need 
attach  no  importance  to  the  mention  of  '  kings '  in  the 
plural  (1  Tim.  ii.  2)  as  if  the  author  must  have  had  the 
system  of  Joint  emperorship  in  view.  The  precept  to 
pray  for  them  is  quite  general,  therefore  there  is  no  need 
to  relegate  the  Epistle  to  a  date  later  than  137. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  accept  Baur's  assertion  that  in 
the  phrase  '  antitheses  of  knowledge  falsely  so  called ' 
(1  vi.  20)  the  term  •  antitheses  '  is  taken  from  the  title  of 
Marcion's  treatise,  and  '  knowledge  falsely  so  called  '  from 
Hegesippus.  It  is  probable  that  the  latter  phrase  was  not 
used  by  Hegesippus  at  all,  but  is  simply  due  to  Eusebius 
himself  (cf.  Eus.,  H.E.  iii.  32  with  iv.  22).  Even  if  it  were, 
this  proves  nothing,  for  it  is  mere  assumption  to  say  that 
a  Jewish  Christian  like  Hegesippus  would  not  have  quoted 
a  work  attributed  to  Paul.  If,  as  several  scholars  still 
think,  the  former  phrase  really  refers  to  Marcion's 
Antitheses,  the  lateness  of  the  Epistle  would  not  be  proved. 
The  Pastoral  Epistles  as  a  whole  seem  to  have  been  known 
to  Polycarp,  they  must  therefore  have  been  composed 
early  in  the  second  century  at  the  latest.  The  reference 
to  Marcion's  work  would  therefore  have  to  be  treated  as 
a  later  interpolation,  along  with  several  other  passages, 
which  in  Hamack's  judgment,  as  in  that  of  some  other 
scholars,  reflect  the  condition  of  things  in  the  middle  of 


▼II.]  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  «B 

the  second  century.  But  the  reference  to  Marcion  is  by 
no  means  certain.  More  suspicious  is  the  apparent 
quotation  of  a  saying  of  Jesus  as  Scripture  (1  Tim.  v.  18). 
But  this  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  a  quotation 
from  Deuteronomy  immediately  follows  the  reference  to 
Scripture,  so  that  this  reference  may  not  be  intended  to 
cover  the  saying  of  Jesus.  The  objection  that  the  injunc- 
tion to  make  no  new  converts  bishops  impUes  that  a 
considerable  interval  had  elapsed  since  the  foundation  of 
the  Churches  referred  to,  while  true  in  itself  is  not  serious, 
for  these  Churches  had  been  founded  long  enough  to  warrant 
this. 

One  of  the  most  serious  difficulties  is  that  caused  by  the 
stage  of  ecclesiastical  organisation  which  seems  to  have  been 
reached.  It  is  not  clear  that  in  the  case  of  Paul  a  beHef 
in  the  speedy  Second  Coming  of  Christ  would  be  incompat- 
ible with  attention  to  details  of  organisation.  There  are,  in 
fact,  indications  to  the  contrary  in  his  undisputed  letters. 
Paul  united  in  himself  the  fervent  anticipations  of  the 
early  Christians  generally  with  a  cool  practical  common 
sense  which  made  him  act  as  if  the  Second  Coming  might 
be  for  a  long  time  delayed.  As  to  the  actual  details  of 
oi^anisation,  it  is  important  to  observe  that  presbyters 
and  bishops  are  not  distinguished  from  each  other,  as  in 
the  congregational  episcopacy  so  fervently  championed 
by  Ignatius.  We  have  only  two  orders  and  not,  as  in  the 
second  century,  three.  The  position  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  does  not  correspond  to  that  of  the  bishop  of  a  later 
time.  They  are  rather  Paul's  representatives,  legates 
entrusted  with  temporary  missions.  What  does  strike  ua 
as  strange  is  that  so  much  stress  is  laid  on  the  organisation 
and  on  the  ecclesiastical  appointment,  so  httle  on  the  gifts 
which  members  of  the  Church  could  exercise  independently 
of  official  position.  This  is  explained  partly  by  the 
hypothesis  that  the  spiritual  gifts  were  dying  out,  partly 
by  the  fact  that  Paul  wished  to  prepare  the  Church  to 


66       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

meet  the  loss  caused  by  his  own  death  and  that  of  the  other 
leaders.  It  is  questionable,  however,  whether  these 
explanations  are  satisfactory.  It  is  not  certain  that  the 
gifts  were  dying  out,  nor  is  it  easy  to  understand  why  Paul 
should  not  have  felt  it  necessary  to  give  these  instructions 
at  a  somewhat  earlier  period  when  his  life  was  imperilled, 
yet  we  do  not  find  them  in  earlier  Epistles.  The  strength 
of  the  argument  against  the  genuineness  lies  here,  as  in 
some  other  cases,  not  in  the  details,  where  the  edge  of 
criticism  may  be  turned,  but  in  the  general  improbability 
that  Paul  should  have  had  such  a  situation  to  deal  with  as 
is  presupposed,  and  have  dealt  with  it  in  this  way.  It  is 
not  quite  like  him  to  be  so  preoccupied  with  the  details 
of  organisation.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  not  at  all  im- 
possible. Granted  that  the  gifts  were  dying  out,  his 
practical  instinct  would  lead  him  to  provide  an  organisation 
to  take  their  place. 

Another  difficulty  is  raised  by  the  references  to  the 
false  teachers.  It  is  generally  assumed  by  those  who  deny 
the  authenticity  that  the  heresy  attacked  was  some  form 
of  second  century  Gnosticism.  This  requires  the  proof 
of  two  propositions,  that  the  false  teaching  is  Gnostic 
in  its  character  and  that,  if  so,  it  could  not  have  been  in 
existence  so  early  as  the  lifetime  of  Paul.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  similar  allegations  have  been  made  with 
reference  to  the  Colossian  heresy,  but  probably  erroneously. 
In  determining  the  character  of  the  heresy  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  the  descriptions  given  of  false  teaching 
already  present  and  of  that  which  is  predicted,  only  the 
former  being  strictly  relevant  to  the  question  of  date, 
though  the  germs  of  future  developments  will  no  doubt 
be  present  (1  Tim.  iv.  1-3,  2  Tim.  iii.  1-5).  Further,  when 
individuals  are  singled  out  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  they 
represent  the  general  direction  which  the  false  teaching 
took  (2  Tim.  ii.  17  sq.).  And  we  must  not  identify  non- 
Christian  teachers  with  heretical  Christians  (Titus  i.  15,  16). 


▼1I.J  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  fl 

The  heresy  was  cleaxly  Judaic  in  type,  bat  not  Pharisaia 
It  reminds  us  rather  of  that  attacked  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
CJolossians.  This  of  course  does  not  exclude  the  possibiHty 
that  Jewish  were  associated  with  heathen  or  Gnostic 
elements.  Hort  has  examined  the  nature  of  the  heresy  in 
his  Jtidaistic  Christianity,  and  reached  the  conclusion  that 
'  there  is  a  total  want  of  evidence  for  anything  pointing 
to  even  rudimentary  Gnosticism  or  Essenism.'  The 
*  genealogies  '  he  explains  not  as  the  strings  of  emanations, 
such  as  we  find  in  Gnostic  writers,  but  as  the  legendary 
histories  of  the  patriarchs,  especially  such  as  we  find  in 
the  Book  of  Jubilees.  The  term  was  used  in  this  sense. 
The  phrase  '  antitheses  of  knowledge  falsely  so  called ' 
he  says  cannot  refer  to  Marcion's  work  Antitheses.  *  Know- 
ledge '  he  explains  as  the  technical  term  for  the  body  of 
law  based  on  the  decisions  of  the  rabbis,  and  the 
'  antitheses '  as  '  the  endless  contrasts  of  decisions  founded 
on  endless  distinctions  which  played  so  large  a  part  in 
the  casuistry  of  the  scribes  as  interpreters  of  the  Law.* 
If  he  is  right  in  this  there  is  no  need  on  the  ground  of  the 
heresy  attacked  to  bring  the  Epistles  below  the  date  of 
Paul.  At  the  same  time  there  is  the  difficulty  that  Paul 
should  have  felt  it  necessary  to  warn  trusted  disciples  and 
representatives  such  as  Timothy  and  Titus  against  embrac- 
ing these  opinions. 

Another  series  of  objections  is  drawn  from  the  theo- 
logical character  of  the  Epistles  which  is  said  to  be  at 
variance  with  the  theology  of  Paul,  or  to  have  lost  its 
distinctive  features,  to  be  moralistic  in  tone  rather  than 
evangelical.  Perhaps  the  most  significant  and  character- 
istic peculiarity  is  the  use  of  the  word  *  faith.'  In  these 
Epistles  the  term  is  almost  used  in  the  sense  of  orthodoxy, 
or  even  of  the  actual  contents  of  the  wholesome  doctrine, 
whereas  with  Paul  faith  has  a  very  different  sense.  It 
is  true  that  in  Rom.  xii.  6  the  objective  sense  of  the  word 
'faith*  is  supposed  to  be  present,  but  even  if  so  it  ii 


■8        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

questionable  whether  a  smgle  instance  matches  at  all  the 
▼ery  definite  sense  the  term  has  in  the  Pastorals.  It  is  a 
watchword  of  the  author,  and  we  have  no  parallel  for  this 
in  the  earlier  Epistles.  And  this  insistence  on  the  im- 
portance of  sound  doctrine  is  also  far  more  prominent 
than  in  any  other  Epistle  of  Paul.  More  significance 
attaches  to  these  general  characteristics  than  to  specific 
differences  that  have  been  pointed  out.  These  are  in- 
conclusive, and  it  is  needless  to  linger  upon  them. 

Still  weightier  is  the  objection  derived  from  the  style 
and  language  of  these  Epistles.  No  doubt  undue  stress 
has  been  laid  on  the  number  of  words  peculiar  to  this 
group.  Those  that  are  really  significant  are  not  exception- 
ally numerous.  As  in  Colossians  the  false  teaching 
attacked  determines  to  some  extent  the  character  of  tho 
phraseology,  and  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  Paul's 
vocabulary  may  have  been  enriched  in  the  interval.  It 
is  not  here,  however,  that  the  real  difl&culty  hes.  The 
old  energy  of  thought  and  expression  has  gone,  and  the 
greater  smoothness  and  continuity  in  the  grammar  is  a 
poor  compensation  for  the  lack  of  grip  and  of  continuity 
in  the  thought.  We  may  appeal  to  the  change  in  cir- 
cumstances, to  the  exhausting  character  of  his  labours 
and  the  weariness  of  old  age,  and  to  the  fact  that  senility 
often  overtakes  men  of  such  strenuous  thought  and  action 
at  a  rapid  rate.  Yet  it  is  questionable  if  the  interval  which 
separates  the  latest  of  the  imprisonment  Epistles  from 
1  Timothy  would  not  be  incredibly  short  to  account  for  such 
striking  change.  In  that  Epistle  and  in  a  less  degree  in 
Titus  it  is  difficult  to  hear  the  true  Pauline  ring.  This 
does  not  well  admit  of  detailed  proof,  it  is  a  matter  of 
impression,  but  to  those  who  are  impressed  by  it,  it  is 
of  all  arguments  among  the  most  cogent.  There  is  a 
peculiar  phraseology  which  belongs  only  to  these  Epistles 
and  is  found  more  or  less  in  all  of  them  but  not  in  the 
other  writings  of  Paul,  and  it  is  not   clear  that  it  if 


▼n.]  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  99 

•oooimted  for  by  changed  circumstancet  or  the  increaa- 
ing  infirmity  of  the  apostle. 

The  arguments  against  the  genuineness  may  be  sum- 
marised as  follows,  neglecting  those  which  seem  to  be  without 
force.  It  is  strange  that  Paul  should  have  written  letters 
of  this  kind  to  such  companions  and  disciples  as  Timothy 
and  Titus,  and  that  he  should  have  felt  it  necessary  to 
assert  to  them  his  apostleship  and  warn  them  to  keep 
clear  of  heretical  teaching.  If  the  letters  fall  outside  the 
period  covered  by  the  Acts  they  are  probably  not  genuine, 
since  Paul's  imprisonment,  there  recorded,  seems  to  have 
ended  not  in  release,  but  in  death.  As  to  organisation 
we  find  much  stress  on  ecclesiastical  appointment.  Utile 
on  the  spiritual  gifts,  and  it  is  not  quite  like  Paul  to  be 
occupied  so  much  with  details  of  this  kind.  The  general 
emphasis  on  the  importance  of  sound  doctrine  and  the  use 
of  faith  as  almost  equivalent  to  orthodoxy  are  strange  in 
Paul.  So  too  the  tone  of  the  letters  is  moralistic  rather 
than  evangelical,  though  the  latter  element  is  not  absent. 
And  finally  the  style  is  quite  unique  and  unlike  that  of 
the  other  Epistles,  and  the  ring  of  the  letters  does  not 
remind  us  of  Paul. 

In  favour  of  the  genuineness,  apart  from  the  good 
external  evidence,  the  following  arguments  may  be  urged. 
It  is  very  improbable  that  any  one  writing  in  Paul's  name 
with  a  distinct  purpose  in  view  should  have  inserted  some 
of  the  trivial  details  or  injunctions  which  are  quite  natural 
in  a  letter  of  Paul,  but  by  no  means  natural  in  a  letter  that 
is  not  genuine.  Such  is  the  reference  to  the  cloke  left 
at  Troa£  with  the  books  and  the  parchments.  There  are 
also  numerous  personal  references  which  give  a  strong 
impression  of  authenticity,  and  are  unlikely  to  have  been 
written  by  any  one  else.  These  details  and  personal 
references,  however,  occur  almost  entirely  in  two  passages 
in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  i.  16-18  and  iv.  9-21. 
Pfleiderer  and  Hausrath  think  that  these  tections  are 


70       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch 

genuine  Pauline  fragments,  though  it  is  not  quite  cleai 
to  what  cucumstances  the  latter  should  be  assigned.  It 
is,  of  course,  difl&cult  to  understand  how  these  fragments 
were  detached  from  their  original  connexion,  and  this 
tells  against  the  theory.  And  it  might  be  argued  that  the 
admission  of  these  fragments  as  genuine  guarantees  the 
genuineness  of  the  Epistle  in  which  they  are  found,  and 
that  it  is  arbitrary  to  detach  these  sections  which  tell  so 
strongly  m  favour  of  its  genuineness.  It  may  be  granted 
that  these  sections  are  not  so  closely  united  with  the 
Epistle  as  to  be  inseparable  from  it.  The  case  then 
resolves  itself  to  this  :  Are  the  arguments  against  the 
genuineness  of  this  Epistle  as  a  whole  so  strong  that  it 
must  be  rejected  ?  If  so  there  is  nothing  arbitrary  in 
trying  to  rescue  any  passages  that  may  be  Pauline.  On 
the  other  hand  if  the  arguments  against  the  genuineness 
axe  not  so  strong,  the  fact  that  these  sections  are  incor- 
porated will  tell  strongly  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Epistle. 

Several  recent  scholars  who  cannot  accept  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Epistles  as  they  stand  recognise  a  much  larger 
Pauline  element  in  them  than  these  two  sections.  It  is 
usual  to  find  the  largest  genuine  matter  in  2  Timothy 
and  the  least  in  1  Timothy,  and  this  accords  well  with  the 
general  impression  made  by  the  reading  of  the  Epistles. 
Thus  Hamack  thinks  that  very  considerable  sections  of 
2  Timothy  and  perhaps  a  bare  third  of  Titus  might  be 
regarded  as  genuine  in  substance,  though,  apart  from 
the  historical  sections,  few  Pauline  verses  have  remained 
quite  unaltered.  In  1  Timothy  not  a  single  verse  can  be 
indicated  which  clearly  bears  the  stamp  of  Pauline  origin, 
still  it  is  not  improbable  that  even  it  contains  some  Pauline 
material.  Hamack  argues  in  favour  of  a  release  and  a 
second  imprisonment,  but  as  he  adopts  the  earHer  chrono- 
logy he  places  the  release  in  59  and  the  death  in  64.  Apart 
from  late  additions  he  dates  the  Pastoral  Epistles  90-110. 


m.3  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  tl 

MoGifiert  thinks  that  in  2  Timothy  the  whole  of  the  first 
chapter  except  possibly  v.  6b  and  certainly  w.  12-14, 
perhaps  most  of  ii.  1,  8-13  and  the  whole  of  chapter  iv. 
except  w.  3,  4,  may  probably  be  Paul's.  Titus  contains, 
he  thinks,  the  following  Pauline  elements,  iii.  1-7,  12,  13, 
and  possibly  parts  of  the  first  chapter.  There  are  perhaps 
slight  scattered  elements  of  Paul's  writings  in  1  Timothy. 
He  denies  a  release  from  the  imprisonment  mentioned  in 
the  Acts,  and  has  therefore  to  place  these  genuine  Pauline 
elements  before  that  imprisonment  came  to  an  end. 
Bartlet,  who  agrees  with  McGiffert  that  Paul  was  not 
released,  holds  that  the  letters  axe,  on  the  whole,  genuine 
throughout.  He  gets  over  some  of  the  diflBculties  caused 
by  the  denial  of  a  second  imprisonment  by  admitting 
with  McGifiert  that  2  Timothy  combines  portions  of  two 
letters  written  at  different  times  and  under  different 
circimistances. 

Many  scholars  insist  that  the  Epistles  must  be  taken  as 
they  stand  and  are  either  entirely  genuine  or  entirely 
spurious.  Hort  admits  that  the  objections  are  real,  but 
says  that  to  the  best  of  his  belief  the  Epistles  are  genuine, 
and  that  not  in  part  since  the  theory  of  extensive  interpola- 
tion does  not  work  out  well  in  detail.  Hort's  judgment 
on  such  a  matter  deserves  the  most  respectful  deference 
even  from  those  who  are  compelled  to  adopt  a  different 
conclusion.  The  two  points  on  which  the  present  writer 
feels  clearest  are  that  the  Epistles  cannot  have  come  from 
Paul's  hand  in  their  present  form,  yet  that  they  contain 
not  a  Uttle  Pauline  material.  The  impossibility  of  elabo- 
rating a  wholly  satisfactory  theory  and  separating  the 
genuiae  nucleus  from  later  accretions,  can  hardly  override 
these  primary  results.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  demand 
that  critical  analysis  should  achieve  its  work  before  the 
oomposite  character  of  the  documents  can  be  admitted. 


f«       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      |"o» 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  HEBREWS* 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  contains  no  indication  either 
of  the  author's  name  or  of  the  community  to  which  it  was 
addressed.  Its  existence  is  attested  by  quotations  in 
Clement  of  Rome  which  are  woven  into  the  author's  argu- 
ments without  any  suggestion  that  the  words  are  borrowed. 
This  use  assures  us  that  it  belongs  to  the  first  century. 
We  may  first  discuss  the  question  of  its  destination.  The 
title  '  to  the  Hebrews '  might  in  itself  suggest  that  it  was 
an  encyclical  letter  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians.  But 
assuming  the  integrity  of  the  Epistle  this  view  is  impos- 
sible, for  the  letter  was  clearly  written  to  a  definite 
community  to  which  the  author  himself  belonged.  Where 
this  community  was  situated  is,  however,  a  matter  only 
of  uncertain  inference.  The  Epistle  has  naturally  been 
regarded  as  addressed  to  Jerusalem.  Here  the  temptation 
to  abandon  the  Gospel  for  the  Law  would  be  most  keenly 
felt,  especially  with  the  pressure  of  persecution,  the 
fascinations  of  the  cultus,  the  sense  that  their  country  and 
their  race  needed  them  in  its  sore  distress.  No  objection 
to  this  can  be  rightly  based  either  on  vi.  10  or  xii.  4.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  many  Christians  in  Jerusalem  must 
have  heard  Christ,  the  language  of  ii.  3,  which  implies 
that  the  community  had  been  converted  to  Christianity 
by  those  who  had  heard  Him,  certainly  does  not  favour 

^  The  conclusions  adopted  in  this  chapter  rest  on  considerations  mach 
More  fully  stated  in  the  writer's  commentary  in  the  GeiUiury  BilU. 


VIII.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBEBWS  73 

Jerasalem.  It  is  not  likely  that  Timothy  would  have  had 
any  influence  at  Jerusalem  nor  yet  the  writer  himself, 
inasmuch  as  he  not  only  writes  in  Greek  rather  than  in 
Aramaic,  hut  is  limited  in  his  use  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  the  Septuagint.  We  should  certainly  have  exi)ected 
that  the  reUgious  conditions  in  Jerusalem  would  have 
been  much  more  definitely  reflected  in  the  Epistle.  It 
is  probable  that  the  author  wishes  his  readers  to  break 
decisively  with  Judaism  as  a  rehgious  system,  hence  his 
description  of  that  religion  is  almost  entirely  BibHcal 
and  not  concerned  with  the  temple  ritual.  Had  he  been 
writing  to  Christians  in  Jerusalem  who  were  under  the 
spell  of  the  worship  there,  some  explicit  reference  to  this 
worship  would  almost  certainly  have  been  included. 

It  is  not  unnatural,  in  view  of  the  Alexandrian  character 
of  the  theology,  that  the  Epistle  should  have  been  thought 
to  have  been  sent  to  Alexandria,  but  the  writer  may  have 
learnt  his  theology  elsewhere  than  in  that  city,  and  his 
origin  says  nothing  as  to  the  Church  with  which  he  was 
connected  when  the  Epistle  was  written.  The  argument 
that  the  description  of  the  sanctuary  suits  the  Egyptian 
temple  at  Leontopolis  better  than  the  temple  at  Jerusalem 
is  irrelevant  even  if  true,  since  the  author's  discussion  is 
based  exclusively  on  the  tabernacle.  What  seems  fatal  to 
the  Alexandrian  destination  is  that  in  the  catechetical  school 
at  Alexandria  the  tradition  affirmed  Pauline  authorship. 

Much  the  most  probable  suggestion  is  that  it  was  sent  to 
Rome.  The  only  geographical  indication  in  the  Epistle 
is  in  the  words  *  they  of  Italy  salute  you,'  and  the  most 
obvious  though  not  the  only  possible  interpretation  is 
that  a  group  of  ItaUan  Christians  who  are  absent  from 
Italy  send  greetings  to  their  fellow-countrymen  in  Italy. 
If  in  Italy,  it  is  most  natural  to  seek  the  community  in 
Rome.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  it  is  in  Rome 
that  our  first  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  Epistle  is  to 
be  found,  namely  in  Clement  of  Rome» 


?4       rNTBODUCTlON  TO  THE  NEW  TES'TAMENT      [ca. 

It  was  probably  not  sent,  however,  to  the  whole  Church 
of  Rome.  The  composition  of  this  Church  was  predomin- 
antly Grentile,  and  in  spite  of  the  high  authority  which  the 
view  that  the  readers  were  Gentiles  can  claim,  the  present 
writer  is  convinced  that  the  readers  were  of  Jewish  nation- 
ality. The  allusion  to  the  circumstances  of  the  readers 
suggests  a  small  and  homogeneous  group  in  a  large  city 
We  may  best  think  of  a  house-community,  such  as  we  find 
mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.,  or  perhaps  a  Jewish  Christian 
synagogue  (cf.  x.  25,  'not  forsaking  your  own  assembly '). 
It  is  easier  to  understand  why  the  name  of  the  author 
should  have  quickly  faded  into  obUvion  if  it  went  to  a 
small  and  rapidly  disappearing  group  in  the  Roman 
Church. 

That  the  readers  were  Jewish  Christians  has  been  held 
practically  without  exception  till  a  comparatively  recent 
period.  It  is  now  considered  by  many  scholars  that  they 
were  Gentiles  or  that  the  author  writes  without  any 
reference  to  their  nationahty.  There  are  of  course  some 
passages  in  the  Epistle  to  which  this  view  seems  to  do  a 
fuller  justice.  Especially  the  enumeration  of  elementary 
doctrines  in  vi.  1,  2  would,  it  is  said,  suit  those  who  came 
to  Christianity  from  Paganism,  but  not  those  who  passed 
into  it  through  Judaism.  They  would  lie  behind  the 
Jews'  conversion  to  Christianity,  but  would  need  to  be 
dealt  with  in  the  instruction  of  Gentile  converts.  More- 
over, the  faults  against  which  the  writer  warns  his  readers 
are,  it  is  urged,  characteristic  of  a  Gentile  rather  than  a 
Jewish  Christian  commimity.  The  former  argument  has 
real  weight,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  conclusive.  If  it  is  said 
that  these  were  doctrines  which  a  Jew  on  becoming  a 
Christian  would  not  need  to  learn,  it  may  be  argued,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  it  was  precisely  the  doctrines  which 
were  in  a  sense  common  to  Judaism  and  Christianity  which 
needed  to  be  interpreted  from  the  Christian  point  of  view. 
The  second  argument  depends  for  its  force  on  a  too 


tiil]  the  epistle  TO  THE  HEBREWS  7« 

optimistic  view  of  converts  from  Judaism.  Their  moral 
level  was  miquestionably  higher  than  that  of  pagan 
Christians,  yet  exhortations  of  the  kind  contained  in  the 
Epistle  were  certainly  not  superfluous  when  addressed  to 
Jewish  Christians. 

For  the  positive  proof  that  the  readers  were  Jewish 
Christians  we  may  cheerfully  abandon  some  of  the  incon- 
clusive arguments  which  have  been  adduced  and  lay 
stress  on  the  Epistle  as  a  whole.  The  author's  method 
of  handling  his  argument  seems  to  be  conclusive  on  this 
point.  He  writes  no  academic  dissertation,  but  a  word 
of  exhortation  to  save  his  readers  from  threatened 
apostasy.  And  this  was  apostasy,  not  as  is  often  said  to 
paganism  or  complete  irreligion,  but  to  Judaism.  If  we 
concentrate  our  attention  on  details  and  phrases  such  as 
'  to  fall  away  from  the  hving  God,'  the  other  view  gains  a 
certain  plausibihty.  But  it  is  the  Epistle  as  a  whole  which 
decisively  negatives  this  view.  For  in  a  letter  designed 
to  secure  his  readers  from  a  lapse  or  relapse  into  paganism 
we  should  have  expected  much  that  we  do  not  find  in  the 
Epistle,  and  we  find  much  in  it  that  we  should  not  have 
expected.  We  should  have  anticipated  an  attack  on 
paganism,  instead  of  which  we  have  an  elaborate  many- 
sided  demonstration  that  Judaism  is  inferior  to  Christianity. 
It  is  futile  to  say  that  the  author's  arguments  carry  no 
conviction  to  modem  readers.  One  is  at  a  loss  to  know 
what  conviction  they  could  have  carried  to  any  readers 
exposed  to  temptations  from  heathenism.  It  is  quite  a 
mistake  to  assume  that  it  is  only  in  a  misinterpretation 
of  xiii.  9-16  that  we  find  a  warrant  for  the  traditional 
view.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  writer's  argument  is 
designed  to  prove  that  what  the  readers  think  they  have 
in  Judaism  they  have  in  a  perfect  form  in  Christianity. 

What  in  the  present  writer's  judgment  definitely  proves 
the  Jewish  Christian  character  of  the  readers  and  that  their 
temptation  was  to  relapse  into  Judaism  is  the  am  made 


W       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  quite  beside  the  mark  to  say 
that  the  Old  Testament  was  regarded  as  authoritative  by 
Gentile  as  well  as  by  Jewish  Christians.  It  is  more  to  the 
point  to  observe  that  the  grounds  of  acceptance  were  very 
di£ferent.  The  Jew  whether  Christian  or  not  accepted  the 
Old  Testament  as  the  sacred  book  of  his  nation,  his  belief 
might  be  confirmed  by  Christianity  but  it  was  essentially 
independent  of  it.  With  the  Gentile  Christian  the  case 
was  altogether  different.  The  Old  Testament  meant 
nothing  to  him  apart  from  his  Christianity.  It  was  as 
an  integral  portion  of  his  new  religion  that  he  recognised 
its  authority.  Of  what  use  then  was  it  to  supply  a 
Gentile  in  danger  of  apostasy  from  Christianity  with 
arguments  drawn  from  a  book  in  which  he  believed  simply 
because  he  was  a  Christian  ?  The  author's  argument  has 
force  only  if  his  readers  accepted  the  Old  Testament 
independently  of  their  acceptance  of  the  Gospel,  and  this 
Boits  Jewish  Christians  but  not  Gentiles.  It  may  be 
added  that,  even  setting  aside  the  inconclusive  details, 
there  are  many  phrases  in  the  Epistle  which  point  much 
more  naturally  to  Jewish  Christian  than  to  Gentile  readers, 
but  where  the  main  argument  is  so  conclusive  it  is  less 
neoessaxy  to  lay  stress  on  minor  points. 

We  may  now  consider  the  question  of  its  authorship. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was  employed  so  early  in  the 
Roman  Church,  the  attitude  adopted  to  it  by  later  Western 
writers  is  very  curious.  Its  use  by  Hennas  and  Justin 
Martyr  is  uncertain.  It  has  left  no  trace  on  the  other 
Apostolic  Fathers  or  apologists.  The  Gnostics  ignored  it. 
liarcion's  failure  to  include  it  in  his  Canon  may  be  due 
to  ignorance  of  it  or  dislike  of  its  contents.  It  shows 
that  even  if  he  knew  it  he  did  not  consider  it  to  be  Paul's. 
Its  absence  from  the  Muratorian  Canon  probably  implies 
that  the  writer  attributed  to  it  no  canonical  authority, 
though  if  we  had  his  list  in  its  original  form  it  is  possible 
that  ve  might  find  it  included.    One  of  the  most  striking 


vhl]  THB  epistle  to  THE  HEBREWS  77 

facts  is  that  Irenaeas  does  not  employ  it  in  his  chief  work, 
in  which  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  so  extensively  used. 
He  is  said  to  have  quoted  the  Epistle,  and  EUppolytus 
certainly  did  so,  though  we  are  told  that  he  did  not  accept 
tiie  Pauline  authorship.  Caius,  another  Roman  Christian, 
also  refused  to  attribute  it  to  Paul.  This  attitude 
characterised  the  Western  Church  till  the  time  of  Augustine 
and  Jerome. 

It  was  claimed  for  Barnabas  in  North  Africa  by 
Tertullian,  on  what  grounds  we  do  not  know.  He 
betrays  no  knowledge  that  any  one  had  ever  thought  of 
Paul  as  its  author.  Cyprian  and  Novatian  derived  from 
it  no  arguments  in  favour  of  their  own  special  views, 
though  the  Epistle  might  have  been  plausibly  quoted  to 
support  them. 

It  is  in  Alexandria  that  we  find  the  earUest  evidence 
for  the  Pauline  authorship.  At  first  the  main  difficulty 
seems  to  have  been  that  the  Epistle  made  no  claim  to 
be  Pauline  and  that  the  style  rather  resembled  Luke's. 
Origen  dealt  much  more  thoroughly  with  the  question. 
He  was  himself  struck  by  the  divergence  in  style  and 
apparently  by  the  different  complexion  of  the  thought 
from  that  of  Paul.  In  spite  of  this  feeling,  which  seems  to 
shine  through  his  expression,  he  acquiesces  in  the  tradition 
that  the  thoughts  are  Paul's  but  holds  that  the  Epistle 
was  actually  composed  by  one  who  wrote  down  his 
teaching  from  memory  with  his  own  annotations,  possibly 
as  tradition  suggests  by  Clement  of  Rome  or  Luke. 
Naturally  the  restrictions  laid  by  Origen  on  the  full  re- 
cognition of  the  Pauline  authorship  came  to  be  disregarded 
in  the  Eastern  Church,  where  it  was  recognised  as  Paul's 
by  the  fourth  century.  In  the  Western  Church  it  was 
generally  rejected.  Augustine  and  Jerome  were  alike 
hesitant  about  it  but  yielded  to  Eastern  opinion  and 
accepted  the  Pauline  authorship,  and  this  aecored  ite 
aoceptanoe  in  the  Western  Church. 


78        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

Of  the  names  associated  with  the  Epistle  in  antiquity 
we  may  at  once  set  aside  Luke  and  Clement  of  Rome, 
the  former  on  the  ground  of  his  Gentile  origin,  the 
latter  in  virtue  of  his  marked  inferiority  in  grasp  and 
insight.  The  external  evidence  for  Paul  and  Barnabas 
cannot  be  regarded  as  strong.  The  Alexandrian  evi- 
dence for  Paul  is  late,  and  more  than  cancelled  by  the 
attitude  in  the  rest  of  the  Church.  Had  there  been 
any  ground  for  recognising  Pauline  authorship  the  Epistle 
could  not  have  had  the  fate  which  overtook  it  in  the 
Western  Church.  It  was  known  in  the  Church  of  Rome 
before  the  close  of  the  first  century,  but  Clement's  use  of 
it  without  indication  of  author's  name  or  even  of  the 
fact  that  he  is  quoting  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  with  Paul's 
authorship  and  suggests  that  there  was  some  reason  for 
this  reticence.  Nor  would  the  attitude  of  Tertullian  be 
easy  to  explain,  for  he  is  obviously  unaware  that  any 
claim  can  be  made  for  Paul  and  half  apologises  for  appeal- 
ing to  a  work  which  could  not  rank  with  apostolic  writings. 
His  own  view  that  it  was  the  work  of  Barnabas  is  more 
difficult  to  estimate.  The  matter-of-fact  way  in  which  he 
assumes  it  indicates  that  he  was  conscious  of  having  a 
body  of  opinion  behind  him,  and  it  may  have  been  derived 
from  the  Montanists  of  Asia  Minor.  On  the  external 
evidence  the  case  is  stronger  for  Barnabas  than  for  Paul, 
but  it  is  weak  for  both. 

Turning  now  to  the  internal  evidence,  the  one  fixed 
point  is  that  the  Epistle  was  not  written  by  Paul.  This 
is  conclusively  proved  by  every  line  of  evidence.  The 
absence  of  his  name  at  the  beginning  has  no  parallel  in 
his  Epistles.  The  style,  as  even  the  Alexandrians  saw,  is 
inconsistent  with  his  authorship,  the  personahty  revealed 
in  the  writing  is  of  an  order  altogether  different  from  that 
of  Paul,  the  formulae  of  quotation  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  quite  different,  and  so  is  the  text  of  the  Septua- 
gint  employed.    The   Epistle  is  planned  on  quite  othei 


mt.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  7§ 

lines,  the  exhortations  being  inserted  in  the  course  of  the 
argument,  not  massed  together  at  the  close.  The  theology 
is  constructed  from  a  standpoint  which  differs  radically 
from  Paul's,  a  divergence  which  does  not  touch  individual 
points  of  doctrine  alone  but  goes  through  the  entire  systems. 
And  in  view  of  Paul's  emphatic  assertion  that  he  had 
learnt  his  Gospel  from  no  human  teacher,  we  must  con- 
clude that  he  cannot  have  penned  the  confession  of  second- 
hand instruction  received  from  the  immediate  hearers  of 
Jesus. 

If  the  view  were  correct  that  the  Epistle  was  sent  to 
Jerusalem,  we  could  think  of  no  member  of  the  Pauline 
circle  more  acceptable  to  the  Christians  there  than 
Barnabas.  If,  however,  the  Epistle  went  to  Rome  the 
authorship  of  Barnabas  can  hardly  be  considered  probable 
in  view  of  the  lack  of  evidence  connecting  him  with  Rome. 
The  internal  evidence  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  authorship, 
and  too  much  stress  ought  not  to  be  laid  on  the  alleged 
ritual  inaccuracies  as  disproving  authorship  by  a  Levite. 
At  the  same  time  in  a  Christian  who  had  been  for  a  long 
time  associated  with  Jerusalem  we  should  have  expected 
some  reference  to  the  temple.  Moreover,  it  is  not  quite 
easy  to  understand  why  his  name  should  have  become 
disconnected  from  the  Epistle.  Silas  answers  some  of 
the  requirements  inasmuch  as  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Pauline  circle  and  a  friend  of  Timothy.  The  points  of 
contact  between  the  Epistle  and  1  Peter  would  also  receive 
some  explanation  if  Silas,  by  whom  we  are  told  Peter 
wrote  his  Epistle,  were  also  the  author  of  our  letter. 

Luther's  suggestion  of  ApoUos  has  met  with  marked 
favour  among  modem  scholars.  He  was  an  Alexandrian, 
eloquent,  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  powerful  in  confutation 
of  Jewish  arguments  and  establishment  of  the  Messianic 
dignity  of  Jesus.  In  all  these  respects  he  perfectly  fits 
the  conditions  required  by  the  character  of  the  letter. 
Still  there  are  objections  to  hia  authorship.    If  Clement 


80       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

knew  who  the  author  was»  and  it  is  hardly  likely  that  he 
could  have  been  ignorant,  his  silence  in  his  letter  to  the 
Church  at  Corinth  is  rather  strange  on  the  assumption  that 
it  was  written  by  Apollos.  It  is  quite  possible  that  ApoUos 
was  at  some  time  connected  with  Rome,  but  we  have  no 
evidence  to  this  effect ;  whether  he  had  received  instruction 
in  Christianity  from  those  who  had  heard  the  Lord  is  very 
dubious. 

Of  the  other  members  of  the  Pauline  circle  who  are 
known  to  us  much  the  most  probable  suggestion  is  that 
Priscilla  and  Aquila  were  responsible  for  the  letter.  In 
this  form  the  suggestion  was  first  made  by  Hamack,  but 
Bleek  had  previously  recognised  the  strong  claims  of 
Aquila  to  consideration  while  deciding  in  favour  of  Apollos. 
Hamack*s  suggestion  was  favoured  by  the  present  writer 
in  his  Commentary,  by  J.  H.  Moulton  and  by  Schiele,  and 
it  has  recently  been  reaffirmed  with  new  arguments  by 
J.  Bendel  Harris.  There  are  no  tangible  objections  to  it 
except  the  use  of  a  masculine  participle  where  we  should 
have  expected  a  feminine,  but  this  would  involve  merely 
the  change  of  a  single  letter,  and  with  the  disUke  of  the 
idea  that  a  woman  could  have  written  it  the  correction 
to  the  present  text  became  very  early  inevitable.  A  lack 
of  feminine  quaUties  has  been  detected  by  some  writers 
in  the  Epistle,  but  we  may  not  unreasonably  distrust  their 
insight  into  the  complexities  and  possibihties  of  feminine 
psychology.  Besides,  there  are  indications  of  an  opposite 
nature.  In  this  connexion  the  absence  of  any  reference 
to  Deborah  in  the  eleventh  chapter  seems  to  the  present 
writer  the  most  serious  objection. 

No  doubt  what  really  underUes  the  somewhat  contemptu- 
ous attitude  towards  Hamack's  theory  adopted  by  some 
■cholars  is  the  masculine  feeling  that  it  is  a  thing  incredible 
tixst  any  woman  should  have  been  equal  to  the  composition 
of  such  an  Epistle.  With  absurd  prejudices  of  this  kind 
<me  oaxinot  argue,  but  if  the  claims  of  Aquila  deserve  serioni 


nil.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  81 

consideration  the  claims  of  Priscilla,  who  seems  to  have 
been  the  abler  of  the  two,  deserve  it  even  more.  The 
teacher  of  Apollos  may  be  credited  with  the  composition 
of  such  an  Epistle  as  readily  as  Apollos  himself.  And 
this  accounts  better  than  anything  else  for  the  remarkable 
fact  that  the  writer's  name  has  not  been  preserved  to  us. 
As  the  earlier  freedom  with  which  the  Gospel  had  emanci- 
pated women  and  set  them  at  liberty  to  use  their  special 
talents  for  the  edification  of  the  Church,  gave  way  to  a 
stiflfer  and  narrower  ecclesiasticism  which  defrauded  them 
of  their  rights,  there  was  every  temptation  to  suppress  the 
unwelcome  reminder  that  a  woman  had  so  far  ventured 
out  of  her  sphere  as  to  write  such  an  Epistle,  so  quickly  did 
the  Church  forget  that  in  Christ  Jesus  there  can  be  neither 
male  nor  female.  And  of  all  members  of  the  Pauline 
circle  for  whom  the  authorship  could  reasonably  be 
claimed,  Priscilla  and  Aquila  are  the  only  ones  whose 
connexion  with  Rome  and  especially  with  a  house-church 
in  Rome,  can  be  established  (Rom.  xvi.  5).  It  is  quite 
true  that  the  argument  falls  far  short  of  demonstration. 
We  have  to  content  ourselves  with  probabiHties,  and  the 
combination  of  the  Roman  destination  of  the  Epistle  with 
the  suppression  of  the  author's  name  favours  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  author  with  Priscilla. 

An  interesting  suggestion  has  been  made  by  Ramsay 
that  the  Epistle  was  written  by  Philip  from  Caesarea  to  the 
Judaising  section  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  is  the 
outcome  of  discussions  of  Christians  at  Caesarea  with  Paul 
during  his  imprisonment  there.  He  takes  the  concluding 
passage  to  have  been  written  by  Paul.  This  theory  is 
accepted  by  E.  L.  Hicks  with  the  improvement,  however, 
that  he  denies  Paul's  authorship  of  the  concluding  verses. 
The  latter  scholar  draws  out  numerous  parallels  between 
Ephesians  and  Colossians  which  he  assigns  to  the  Caesarean 
imprisonment  and  our  Epistle.  Two  reasons  compel 
the  present  writer  to  reject  this  ingenious  and  suggestive 

F 


82       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [en. 

theory.  One  is  that  he  cannot  believe  the  Epistle  to  have 
been  written  to  Jerusalem,  the  other,  which  seems  to  him 
even  more  decisive,  is  that  the  type  of  theology  which  the 
Epistle  presents  is  so  radically  different  from  that  of  Paul 
that  he  can  have  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  letter  either 
directly  or  indirectly. 

Wrede  has  put  forward  the  theory  that  the  work  is  not  a 
letter  at  all  but  a  treatise,  which  was  fitted  with  its  con- 
cluding verses  by  an  editor  who  wished  thus  to  turn  it 
into  a  Pauline  Epistle.  The  only  tangible  argument  in 
favour  of  this  suggestion  is  that  the  Epistle  has  no  address. 
But  this  argument  cuts  also  the  other  way,  for  if  the 
writer  wished  to  turn  the  letter  into  a  Pauline  Epistle  we 
cannot  understand  why  he  did  not  adopt  the  most  obvious 
method  and  place  Paul's  name  at  the  beginning  of  the 
letter.  Besides,  it  is  not  correct  that  the  work  is  a  mere 
abstract  treatise.  There  are  constant  references  to  the 
conditions  and  perils  of  the  community  of  such  a  kind 
that  we  can  largely  reconstruct  its  history  and  present 
situation.  Finally,  if  the  editor  had  wished  in  the  closing 
verses  to  pass  the  Epistle  off  as  Paul's  he  would  surely 
have  spoken  with  much  greater  definiteness  and  identified 
the  writer  with  Paul  far  more  clearly. 

The  date  of  the  letter  is  very  difficult  to  determine. 
Our  lower  limit  is  given  by  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  which 
was  written  about  96  a.d.  The  reference  to  Timothy 
suggests  that  Paul  was  dead.  Many  would  place  its 
composition  between  Paul's  death  and  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  Most  of  the  arguments  are  inconclusive. 
The  reference  to  the  Jewish  ritual  does  not  imply  that  the 
temple  was  standing,  for  the  author  leaves  the  temple  out 
of  sight,  nor  are  we  entitled  to  argue  that  if  Jerusalem  had 
been  destroyed  he  could  not  have  failed  to  mention  so 
signal  a  condemnation  of  the  Jewish  system.  Previous 
destruction  or  profanation  of  the  temple  had  not  implied 
the  abolition  of   the  religion,  and  why  should   the  d«?- 


Till.]  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  83 

atruotion  by  Titus  form  an  exception  ?  The  present  tenses 
which  have  suggested  that  the  ritual  was  still  going  on,  may 
be  matched  from  Josephus  or  Clement  who  wrote  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  If  x.  32-34  refers,  as  many  think, 
to  the  Neronian  persecution,  the  most  probable  suggestion 
would  be  that  the  Epistle  was  written  when  the  persecution 
by  Domitian  was  anticipated.  It  is  difficult,  however, 
to  believe  simply  on  the  ground  of  the  word  '  made  a 
gazing-stock '  that  the  Neronian  persecution  can  be  in- 
tended, the  language  used  being  much  too  mild.  It  is 
perhaps  best  to  suppose  that  the  letter  was  written  in  the 
interval  after  the  death  of  Paul  and  when  the  Neronian 
persecution  was  in  its  initial  stages.  But  there  is  no 
warrant  whatever  for  a  dogmatic  decision  between  this 
and  the  later  date. 


64       INTEODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [cau 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES 

Thb  Epistle  has  been  generally  assigned  to  James  the 
Lord's  brother.  There  is  much  to  make  this  plausible. 
He  was  president  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  his  piety 
was  of  a  strongly  ascetic  type  and  commanded  the  venera- 
tion of  Jews  as  well  as  Christians.  He  was,  even  as  a 
Christian,  strongly  attached  to  Judaism,  though  he  acted 
on  occasion  as  a  mediator  between  Paul  and  the  extreme 
Jewish  Christians.  And  the  Jewish  Christians  generally 
seem  to  have  looked  up  to  him  as  a  leader.  Certain 
characteristics  of  the  Epistle  appear  to  confirm  the 
traditional  view  of  its  authorship.  It  is  very  Jewish  and 
is  remarkably  poor  in  specifically  Christian  elements. 
Much  of  it  indeed  might  have  been  written  by  one  who 
remained  at  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view.  So  much, 
in  fact,  is  this  the  case  that  Spitta  has  suggested  that  it  is 
a  Jewish  writing,  turned  into  a  Christian  by  two  small 
interpolations.  This  theory,  in  which  he  does  not  stand 
quite  alone,  is  unlikely,  for  the  supposed  Christian  reviser 
would  not  have  rested  content  with  so  slight  a  dash  of 
Christianity,  and  the  parallels  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  cannot  so  plausibly  be  referred  to  a  Jewish  origin. 
Besides,  we  must  have  regard  not  simply  to  what  the  Epistle 
contains,  but  to  what  it  does  not  contain.  But  that  such 
a  theory  should  have  been  possible  shows  how  Uttle  that 
is  definitely  Christian  is  to  be  found  in  the  Epistle.  So  far 
as  Christianity  is  represented  in  it,  it  is  on  t'le  ethical  and 


fx.]  THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  M 

practical,  not  on  the  speculative  side.  The  preponderating 
importance  attached  to  the  Second  Coming,  which  furnishes 
the  sanction  of  warnings  and  the  basis  of  encouragement, 
was  also  characteristic  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  but  by 
no  means  exclusively  so.  The  attitude  assumed  to  wealth 
and  the  wealthy  faithfully  represents  the  Ebionism  of  the 
Jewish  Christians.  When  the  writer  condemns  the  respect 
of  persons  in  some  of  the  Christian  synagogues,  he  is  not 
simply  blaming  his  readers  for  the  preference  they  show 
the  rich,  but  says  that  God  has  chosen  the  poor  to  be  rich 
in  faith  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom,  whereas  the  rich  are  their 
oppressors  and  blaspheme  the  name  of  Christ.  Similarly 
in  ch.  V.  he  predicts  the  woes  that  are  to  fall  on  the  rich 
for  their  oppression  of  the  poor  and  the  righteous.  If 
he  does  not  say  that  wealth  is  a  bad  thing  in  itself,  he 
comes  very  near  it.  His  conception  of  Christianity  as 
a  law  is  also  very  Jewish.  The  Christians  meet  in 
sjoiagogues,  the  organisation  is  simple.  Indications  of 
Palestinian  origin  are  discovered.  There  is  no  reference 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  or  to  the  Gentile  mission. 
These  characteristics  have  been  thought  by  many  to 
demonstrate  not  simply  that  James  wrote  the  Epistle,  but 
that  it  is  the  earUest  book  in  the  New  Testament. 

Both  views,  however,  are  now  widely  rejected.  The 
Epistle  is  written  in  better  Greek  than  we  should  have 
expected  in  a  composition  by  James,  but  he  may  have  had 
assistance  in  this.  It  is  also  thought  that  the  situation 
presupposed  carries  us  down  a  long  way  beyond  his  time. 
The  vices  rebuked  seem  to  imply  a  rather  long  develop- 
ment. Moreover,  the  writer's  silence  about  Christ,  especi- 
ally about  EUs  death  and  even  His  earthly  life,  in  spite 
of  the  rather  frequent  references  to  His  teaching,  is  strange 
in  one  who  stood  in  the  position  of  James.  It  is  remarkable 
that  he  quotes  the  prophets  and  Job  as  examples  of 
patience  and  says  nothing  at  all  about  Jesus  in  this  con- 
nexion.   There  is  also  a  remarkable  absence  of  features 


8«        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oh. 

which  were  prominent  in  the  theology  of  the  primitive 
Church.  There  is  no  reference  to  the  controversy  with 
Judaism  as  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The  simphcity 
of  the  theology  is  not  necessarily  a  sign  of  early  date. 
In  general  standpoint  the  Epistle  is  nearly  akin  to  that 
which  we  find  in  the  theologians  in  the  first  part  of  the 
second  century,  especially  Hennas.  Hamack  asks  with 
great  force  whether  we  can  suppose  that  about  30-50  a.d. 
there  was  a  Christianity  like  that  of  Hermas,  Clement, 
Justin  and  2  Clement,  and  that  ninety  years  later  it 
reappeared  though  in  a  weakened  form,  while  Paul, 
Hebrews  and  John  came  between  {Chronologie,  p.  486). 

The  section  on  justification  by  faith  raises  the  problem 
of  its  relation  to  Paul  in  an  acute  form.  It  is  held  by  many 
that  James  is  here  taking  the  view  that  a  dead  orthodoxy, 
exemplified  in  the  theoretical  confession  of  monotheism, 
suflSced  for  salvation.  In  that  case  there  need  be  no 
reference  of  any  kind  to  Paul's  doctrine,  since  Paul 
certainly  did  not  mean  by  faith  an  intellectual 
orthodoxy.  It  is  difiicult,  however,  to  believe  that  the 
passages  are  independent,  since  it  is  not  simply  a  question 
of  the  formulae  but  the  fact  that  the  example  of  Abraham 
is  chosen  to  prove  both  formulae,  while  the  problem  is 
further  complicated  by  the  reference  to  Rahab  which 
looks  as  if  the  author  had  also  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
before  him.  The  present  writer  finds  it  difficult  to 
beHeve  that  James  is  the  earUer.  The  contradiction 
is  not  so  direct  as  is  sometimes  supposed,  but  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  the  attempts  at  reconciUation  are 
completely  successful.  Probably,  however,  we  have  not 
in  any  case  to  do  with  an  attack  upon  Pauliaism  but 
rather  on  those  who  sheltered  their  failure  in  practice 
behind  a  Pauline  formula  whose  implications  they  entirely 
misunderstood.  This  fact  in  itself  favours  a  fairly  late 
date.  The  moral  degeneracy  which  has  affected  the 
Churches  is  often  regarded  as  a  sign  of  late  date.    This 


a.]  THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  87 

criterion,  human  nature  being  what  it  is,  is  of  course  quite 
inadequate.  So  far  as  it  goes,  however,  it  seems  to  suit  a 
late  better  than  an  early  period,  especially  the  pre-Pauline 
period.  And  here  again  the  aflBnities  to  Hennas  are  very 
marked.  The  references  to  persecution  can  be  harmonised 
with  any  date.  What,  however,  speaks  strongly  against 
the  early  date  is  the  salutation.  It  is  extremely  difficult 
to  believe  that  an  encycHcal  letter  should  be  written  by 
James  to  the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  Dispersion  at  so 
early  a  period. 

The  external  evidence  also  is  not  favourable  to  the  early 
date.  Origen  is  the  first  to  mention  it  by  name,  and  the 
form  of  expression  which  he  chooses  indicates  his  know- 
ledge that  doubt  was  felt  as  to  the  authorship.  It  is 
possible  that  it  was  used  by  Irenaeus  and  TertuUian,  though 
extremely  doubtful.  It  was  included  in  the  Syrian 
Version  known  as  the  Peshitta,  but  this  is  probably  too 
late  to  make  the  fact  of  any  significance.  There  seems  to 
be  nothing  in  the  external  evidence  to  counterbalance 
the  evidence  for  late  date  which  the  internal  evidence 
suggests.  If  we  accept  the  authorship  by  James  we 
should  probably  do  better  to  place  it  as  late  in  his  lifetime 
as  possible,  though  while  this  would  have  the  advantage 
of  making  the  phenomena  which  point  to  a  somewhat 
advanced  development  more  easy,  it  would  be  more 
difficult  to  evade  the  conclusion  that  the  Pauline  formulae 
are  definitely  attacked.  More  probably,  however,  we 
should  abide  by  the  post-apostoUc  date.  The  absence  of 
any  reference  to  Gnostic  tendencies  favours  a  date  com- 
paratively early  in  the  second  century. 

Of  the  author  we  know  nothing.  He  speaks  of  himself 
as  James.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  Epistle  is  pseudony- 
mous. Such  may  have  been  the  author's  name.  Hamack 
considers  that  the  work  was  not  originally  an  Epistle  but 
rather  a  homily  of  the  type  of  the  so-called  Second  Epistle 
of  Clement,  which  was  turned  into  a  letter  of  James  about 


88       INTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

the  end  of  the  second  century.  He  argues  that  the  work 
was  not  forged  in  the  name  of  James  about  120-140  a.d., 
inasmuch  as  the  author  nowhere  hints  that  he  intends  to 
be  taken  for  James,  which  he  must  have  done  on  the 
contrary  supposition.  Moreover,  the  address  contemplates 
collective  Christendom,  but  part  of  the  work  at  least 
contemplates  a  definitely  limited  circle.  Further,  its  dis- 
continuity and  its  lack  of  connexion  suggest  that  we  must 
look  upon  it  as  a  compilation.  We  gain  no  clear  insight 
into  the  characteristics  of  the  community  or  communities 
to  which  it  is  directed.  This  difference  in  the  readers 
addressed  is  matched  by  a  similar  lack  of  homogeneousness 
in  the  contents.  Part,  Hamack  says,  is  like  a  reproduction 
of  sayings  of  Jesus,  part  Hebraic  but  in  the  spirit  of  the 
old  prophets,  part  in  power,  correctness  and  elegance  to 
be  classed  with  good  examples  of  Greek  rhetoric  (iii.  1-12), 
part  the  work  of  a  theological  controversialist.  The  most 
paradoxical  thing  of  all  is  that  a  certain  unity  both  of 
moral  feeling  and  language  gives  an  internal  imity  to  the 
composition  in  spite  of  its  lack  of  connexion.  While  no 
certain  explanation  can  be  given  of  these  phenomena,  they 
suggest  that  the  different  pieces  were  not  originally  written 
for  their  context,  so  that  we  must  distinguish  between  the 
author  and  the  redactor.  The  author  drew  from  Jewish 
proverbial  wisdom,  from  speeches  of  Jesus  and  from  Greek 
wisdom.  The  book  was  probably  compiled  soon  after  his 
death. 

The  lack  of  unity  is  acutely  felt  by  other  scholars. 
Jiilicher  considers  that  it  is  due  to  the  gradual  growth 
of  the  Epistle.  Von  Soden  also  believes  that  certain 
sections  are  so  deficient  in  characteristic  Christian  ideas 
(iii.  1  - 18,  iv.  11  -  V.  20)  that  we  may  conjecture  that  they 
are  of  Jewish  origin.  The  only  section  in  which  definitely 
Christian  ideas  are  discussed  is  ii.  14-26.  At  the  same  time 
it  would  be  a  mistake,  he  holds,  to  consider  that  we  have 
here  a  Jewish  work  which  has  been  taken  over  by  Christians, 


OLJ  TEE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  m 

And  that  not  only  because  the  discussion  of  Justification 
would  be  difficult  to  explain,  but  because  specifically 
Jewish  ideas  have  been  replaced  by  what  is  purely  ethical. 
An  interesting  suggestion  has  been  put  forward  by 
G.  Currie  Martin  to  the  effect  that  the  work  really  contains 
a  collection  of  sayings  of  Jesus  which  were  made  by  the 
author  the  basis  of  short  homilies  or  reflections  collected  in 
the  Epistle  by  some  of  his  disciples  after  his  death.  J.  H. 
Moulton,  who  agrees  that  the  Epistle  contains  a  considerable 
number  of  otherwise  unrecorded  sayings  of  Jesus,  has  made 
a  still  more  Interesting  suggestion  that  the  Epistle  was 
written  by  James  of  Jerusalem  but  was  addressed  not  to 
Christians  but  to  Jews.  This  has  the  very  great  advantage 
that  it  explains  why  a  Christian  writing  should  be  so 
destitute  of  avowedly  Christian  elements.  The  writer 
would  not  damage  his  appeal  by  specific  references  to 
Christ,  above  all  to  the  scandal  of  His  cross.  But  he 
included  many  sayings  of  Jesus  in  the  hope  that  their  own 
intrinsic  beauty  and  worth  would  commend  them  to  the 
readers  and  prepare  them  for  a  truer  estimate  of  the 
crucified  Nazarene  whom  they  hated  and  despised.  This 
involves  that,  as  other  scholars  have  suggested,  the  refer- 
ences to  Christ  were  not  a  part  of  the  original  composition. 
This  theory  escapes  several  though  not  all  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  have  to  be  urged  against  the  view  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  by  James  to  Christians.  The  passage 
about  justification  is  perhaps  the  most  difficult  to  reconcile 
witii  it*  but  the  hypothesis  deserves  aerioua  consideratioa. 


tJK)        INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       (..li 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OP  PETER 

Tms  Epistle  claims  in  its  salutation  to  be  the  work  of 
Peter,  and  this  claim  is  attested  by  very  full  external 
evidence.  It  was  known  to  the  author  of  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter  and  to  Polycarp  and  to  the  author  of  the 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  According  to  Eusebius 
it  was  also  known  to  Papias.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Muratorian  Canon,  but  Eusebius  includes  it  among  the 
generally  accepted  Epistles.  It  is  quoted  as  Peter's  by 
Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  TertulUan  and  Origen. 
It  is  probable  that  it  was  quoted  by  Clement  of  Rome 
before  the  close  of  the  first  century,  though,  as  in  most  of 
these  cases,  the  relationship  might  be  reversed.  If  the 
Epistle  of  James  belongs  to  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century  it  is  not  at  all  impossible  that  the  author  has 
drawn  on  this  Epistle. 

The  traditional  view,  however,  has  been  attacked  by 
many  modem  critics  on  various  grounds.  It  has  been 
frequently  asserted  that  the  attitude  of  the  State  to 
Christians  depicted  in  the  letter  cannot  be  harmonised 
with  a  date  earlier  than  the  edict  of  Trajan  in  his  letter 
to  Pliny.  This  view  has  been  rejected  by  the  highest 
authority  on  Roman  history,  Mommsen,  and  by  writers 
such  as  Neumann,  Ramsay  and  Hardy,  who  have  devoted 
special  attention  to  the  subject.  Whereas,  however, 
Ramsay  thinks  that  the  state  of  aifairs  contemplated 
cannot  have  arisen  earlier  than  80  a.d.,  Mommsen,  Hardj 


X]  THE  FIKST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  91 

and  others,  think  it  may  have  originated  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Nero.  K  Ramsay's  date  is  correct,  it  is  hardly 
hkely  that  the  Epistle  can  be  by  Peter,  for  he  probably 
died  in  the  Neronian  persecution.  Ramsay  thinks  that  he 
may  have  lived  much  longer  than  is  usually  supposed 
and  have  written  the  Epistle,  but  this  has  found  Uttle 
support.  In  view  of  Mommsen's  Judgment  it  seems  safe 
to  assume  that  the  relations  of  State  and  Church  indicated 
in  the  Epistle  could  very  well  have  been  reached  in  the 
reign  of  Nero,  and  therefore  no  serious  difl&culty  need  be 
felt  on  that  score  in  the  way  of  accepting  its  Petrine 
authorship.  It  must  be  added,  however,  that  while  Von 
Soden  and  others  reject  the  date  in  the  reign  of  Trajan, 
placing  the  Epistle  in  the  reign  of  Domitian  about 
A.D.  92-96,  Schmiedel  with  full  knowledge  of  the  argu- 
ments on  the  other  side  holds  to  the  origin  of  the  Epistle 
in  the  time  of  Trajan  ('  Christian,  Name  of,'  in  Enc.  Bibl.). 
The  other  serious  objection  to  Peter's  authorship  is  the 
theological  standpoint.  It  is  urged  that  if  Peter  were 
the  author'"we  must  have  had  far  more  traces  of  the  influ- 

CI 

ence  of  Christ's  teaching,  whereas  what  we  find  is  very 
marked  influence  of  the  teaching  of  Paul.  B.  Weiss  has 
attempted  to  show  that  the  Epistle  was  written  before  any 
of  Paul's  letters,  and  that  so  far  as  there  is  dependence  it 
is  of  Paul  on  Peter  and  not  of  Peter  on  Paul.  In  this  he 
is  followed  only  by  Kiihl,  and  the  theory  may  be  safely 
set  aside.  Others,  while  admitting  Pauline  influence, 
have  minimised  its  extent.  But  neither  does  this  seem 
a  legitimate  way  of  meeting  the  difficulty.  We  may 
rather  state  the  problem  in  this  form.  Granting  that  the 
dominant  influence  is  that  of  Paul,  is  this  incompatible 
with  Petrine  authorship  ?  It  should  be  observed  that  the 
influence  of  Christ's  teaching  is  not  wholly  absent,  and 
there  are  reminiscences  which  gain  much  of  their  point 
if  they  are  seen  to  rest  on  the  personal  recollections  of  an 
eye-witness. 


M       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

It  is,  however,  true  that  the  emphasis  lies  on  the 
work  of  Christ  rather  than  on  His  teaching.  But  this  is 
not  unnatural.  However  great  the  impression  made  on 
Peter  by  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  made  by  His  death 
and  resurrection  must  have  been  far  greater.  At  first 
the  meaning  of  the  death  was  by  no  means  clear  to  the 
apostles.  But  helped  by  the  references  of  Jesus  to  it 
in  such  sayings  as  '  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many,'  and  '  This  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
blood,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins,' 
and  further  by  the  prophecy  of  the  Suffering  Servant  of 
Yahweh,  which  was  early  applied  to  Christ,  they  connected 
the  death  of  Christ  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  And  thus 
there  naturally  came  a  change  in  the  centre  of  gravity. 
The  death  of  Christ  was  no  longer  a  perplexing  incident, 
the  shame  of  which  was  partially  cancelled  by  the 
resurrection,  and  to  be  wholly  done  away  when  He 
returned  in  glory.  It  was  seen  to  have  an  essential 
significance  for  salvation.  And  so  Paul  testifies  to  the 
unity  between  himself  and  the  original  apostles  in  the 
gospel  they  preached,  and  enumerates  among  its  tenets 
that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures. 
Even  then  if  Paul  had  never  become  a  Christian,  we 
ought  not  to  have  been  surprised  if  in  an  Epistle  of  Peter 
a  leading  place  should  be  given  to  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  But  since  Paul  had  developed  a  theory 
of  the  work  of  Christ  as  atoning  for  sin  and  doing  away 
with  it,  it  is  not  sm^rising  that  Peter  should  avail  himself 
of  the  thoughts  of  his  brother  apostle  in  speaking  of  the 
same  theme.  He  had  long  before  reached  the  same 
general  result  as  Paul,  and  the  whole  account  we  have 
of  him  gives  the  impression  of  a  highly-receptive  and 
large-hearted  personality.  Nor  ought  we  to  forget  an 
added  reason  why  such  emphasis  should  be  laid  on  the 
suffering  and  deal^  of  Christ.    The  Epistle  was  not  called 


fcj  THE  FIKST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  9t 

forth  by  the  desire  to  give  theological  instruction  ao  much 
as  to  meet  an  urgent  practical  need.  A  State  persecution 
had  begim,  and  it  was  necessary  to  encourage  the  readers 
to  patient  endurance,  and  even  Joy  in  their  distress.  It 
is  natural  that  in  dealing  with  this  problem  of  suffering, 
Peter  should  lay  much  stress  on  the  suffering  and  death  of 
Christ. 

A  very  interesting  suggestion  has  been  made  by 
McGiffert  to  the  effect  that  the  Epistle  may  have  been 
written  by  Barnabas.  There  are  several  features  which 
would  suit  Barnabas.  He  may  have  been  a  witness  of  the 
Bufferings  of  Christ.  He  knew  Silvanus,  he  was  a  relative 
of  Mark  which  would  account  for  the  reference  to  '  my  son.* 
He  was  a  missioner  to  some  of  the  Churches  addressed, 
and  he  was  said  to  have  written  an  Epistle.  Two  Epistles 
were  ascribed  to  him  in  antiquity,  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  and  the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  His 
authorship  of  the  former  is  on  the  whole  improbable,  and  it 
is  almost  certain  that  he  did  not  write  the  latter.  May  he 
not  then  have  written  our  Epistle  ?  The  Pauline  character 
of  the  theology  might  perhaps  be  more  easily  explained 
on  this  hypothesis.  K  we  were  compelled  to  surrender 
the  Petrine  authorship,  Barnabas  would  certainly  be  a 
plausible  suggestion.  At  the  same  time  there  are  con- 
siderations which  tell  against  it.  At  the  date  to  which 
McGiffert  assigns  it  in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  probably 
before  a.d.  90,  Barnabas  must  have  been  very  old.  He 
may  of  course  have  survived  to  this  time,  but  this  is  hardly 
probable.  Besides,  if  Barnabas  wrote  the  letter  we  cannot 
understand  why  it  should  not  from  the  first  have  circulated 
as  his.  The  senior  companion  of  Paul  was  of  sufficient 
weight  to  give  his  own  name  to  the  Epistle  and  not  send  it 
forth  anonymously,  leaving  a  later  scribe  or  editor  to  attach 
Peter's  name  to  it. 

Von  Soden's  suggestion  that  Silvanus  was  the  author 
b  also  not  lacking  in  plausibihty.    He  was  a  companion 


94       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

of  Paul,  and  the  Pauline  character  of  the  letter  would  b« 
thus  accounted  for.  Moreover,  the  author  says  '  by  Sil- 
vanus  our  faithful  brother  as  I  account  him  I  have  written 
onto  you  briefly.'  This  probably  impHes  that  Silvanus 
was  his  amanuensis,  and  it  is  not  unUkely  that  Peter,  who 
was  unskilled  in  literary  composition,  might  leave  a  good 
deal  of  the  actual  wording  of  the  letter  to  Silvanus.  That 
Silvanus,  however,  long  after  the  death  of  Peter  should  have 
written  the  letter  in  Peter's  name,  and  put  this  testimony  to 
himself  in  Peter's  mouth,  can  hardly  be  considered  probable. 
If  the  Epistle  was  not  written  by  Peter,  the  mention  of 
the  apostle's  name  at  the  opening  of  the  letter  has  to  be 
accounted  for.  Several  consider  that  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  deliberately  issued  it  in  Peter's  name.  It  would  be 
a  mistake  to  apply  our  modem  standards  to  such  a  pro- 
ceeding ;  nevertheless  it  is  better  to  avoid  these  suggestions 
unless  we  are  driven  to  them.  Hamack  formerly  suggested 
that  it  was  originally  anonymous  and  was  in  fact  not  a 
letter  at  all,  but  that  it  was  turned  into  a  letter  and 
ascribed  to  Peter  by  an  author  in  the  second  century, 
probably  the  author  of  the  Second  Epistle.  It  is,  however, 
extremely  difl&cult  to  detach  the  beginning  and  the  end 
from  the  letter,  and  the  theory  of  its  originally  non- 
epistolary  character  is  hardly  borne  out  by  the  composition 
itself.  His  latest  utterance  implies  a  greater  readiness  to 
accept  the  Petrine  authorship.  McGiffert  agrees  that  the 
Epistle  was  originally  anonymous,  and  that  the  addition 
of  Peter's  name  was  the  mere  guess  of  a  scribe. 

If  Peter  wrote  the  Epistle  its  date  is  determined  within 
rath^  narrow  limits.  He  seems  to  draw  upon  the  Epistles 
to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Ephesians,  so  that  if  the  apostle 
perished  in  the  persecution  of  Nero  we  should  be  obliged 
to  date  it  in  the  early  sixties.  The  reference  to  the  Church 
in  Babylon,  when  combined  with  the  amply  attested 
tradition  that  Peter  was  crucified  in  Rome  after  a  pastoral 
activity  of  several  months,  favours  the  view  that  Rome  was 


K.1  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETEE  96 

the  place  of  its  composition.  The  only  tenable  alternative 
to  this  would  be  to  regard  Babylon  as  the  famous  city  of 
that  name.  More  probably,  however,  the  mystical 
Babylon  is  meant,  though  it  must  be  confessed  that  this 
designation  of  Rome  is  more  natural  in  apocalypses  than 
in  an  Epistle.  The  letter  was  addressed,  as  we  see  from 
i.  1,  to  the  sojourners  of  the  dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bithynia.  The  reference  to  the 
dispersion  suggests  that  the  readers  were  Jewish  Christians. 
This,  however,  is  not  favoured  by  the  language  of  the 
Epistle.  The  leading  thought  with  the  writer  is  that  the 
Christians  are  the  true  Israel,  and  it  is  in  the  light  of  this 
thought  that  the  utterances  must  be  interpreted.  The 
references  made  by  the  author  to  the  pre-Christian  con- 
dition of  the  readers  cannot  reasonably  be  harmonised 
with  the  theory  that  they  were  Jewish  Christians.  He 
can  hardly  have  said  of  them  that  in  time  past  they  were 
no  people  (ii.  10)  or  have  spoken  of  their  former  manner 
of  Ufe  in  the  terms  of  i.  14,  18,  iv.  2,  3.  The  impUed 
contrast  between  the  present  and  the  past  in  iii.  6  also 
suggests  that  they  had  first  become  descendants  of  Sarali 
whea  ihey  became  Christiaos. 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      lck. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THB  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER   AND  THl 
EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 

Thssb  writings  are  bo  closely  related  that  it  is  desirable 
to  treat  them  together.  We  may  take  first  the  relation 
between  the  two  Epistles.  The  extent  of  coincidence 
between  them  is  so  great  that  one  must  have  copied  the 
other.  In  the  judgment  of  most  scholars  Jude  is  the 
original  from  which  2  Peter  borrowed.  It  is  in  the  first 
place  curious  that,  if  2  Peter  were  the  earher,  Jude  should 
have  contented  himself  with  extracting  simply  the  section 
against  the  false  teachers.  But  apart  from  this  general 
improbability,  when  we  come  to  place  the  two  documents 
side  by  side  and  test  them,  it  is  generally  easy  to  explain 
why  the  author  of  2  Peter  has  altered  Jude,  but  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  why,  if  Jude  had  2  Peter  before  him,  he  should 
have  altered  his  original  to  the  form  that  we  find  in  his 
Epistle.  Obscurities  in  2  Peter  can  in  some  cases  be 
cleared  up  by  reference  to  Jude.  Moreover,  the  task  of 
the  writer  of  Jude  would,  as  Chase  has  pointed  out,  have 
required  little  short  of  a  miracle  of  Uterary  skill.  He 
*  eUminated  harsh  and  tortuous  phrases,  brought  together 
scattered  ideas,  infused  reminiscences  of  Enoch,  and 
wrought  the  whole  into  natural  compact  and  harmonious 
paragraphs.'  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  fact 
that  Jude  not  only  fails  to  incorporate  the  greater  part  of 
2  Peter,  but  betrays  no  trace  of  its  influence  in  vocabulary 
or  style.     We  may  therefore  take  the  priority  of  Jude, 


XL]  SECOND  PETER  AND  JUDB  BT 

in  spite  of  the  ingenious  arguments  to  the  contraiy,  as  made 
good. 

This  has  an  obvious  bearing  on  the  genuineness  of 
2  Peter.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  is  no  reason  why  Peter 
should  not  have  borrowed  from  Jude.  The  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  shows  striking  traces  of  the  influence  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  especially  of  Romans  and  Ephesians, 
and  Peter  impresses  one  as  a  very  receptive  personality, 
so  that  in  itself  we  need  feel  no  insurmountable  objection 
to  the  view  that  he  should  have  borrowed  from  Jude. 
But  as  Adeney  says  :  '  It  is  one  thing  to  lean  upon  Paul, 
and  even  James,  and  another  thing  to  absorb  and  utilise 
virtually  the  whole  of  the  short  Epistle  of  so  obscure  a 
writer  as  Jude.  In  defending  the  genuineness  of  2  Peter 
we  accuse  the  great  apostle  of  plagiarising  in  a  remarkable 
way.'  And  quite  apart  from  this,  there  is  the  serions 
question  whether  we  can  bring  back  the  date  of  Jude 
into  the  lifetime  of  Peter.  If  not,  a  work  which  has  been 
based  upon  Jude  cannot  have  been  written  by  the  apostle 
Peter.  The  inference  from  the  relationship  between  this 
apostle  and  Jude  is  confirmed  by  comparison  with  1  Peter. 
Mayor  has  calculated  that  as  regards  vocabulary  the 
number  of  agreements  with  1  Peter  is  a  hundred  as  opposed 
to  five  hundred  and  ninety-nine  disagreements.  The 
relationship  between  2  Peter  and  the  Old  Testament  is 
much  slighter  than  is  the  case  with  the  First  Epistle,  and 
the  author  alludes  less  to  the  Gospel  narrative.  Spitta, 
who  is  one  of  the  most  vigorous  and  ingenious  defenders 
of  the  authenticity  of  2  Peter  and  its  priority  to  Jude, 
is  quite  convinced  that  identity  of  authorship  cannot  be 
claimed  for  the  Second  Epistle,  accordingly  he  rescues 
2  Peter  by  surrendering  the  authenticity  of  1  Peter. 
E.  A.  Abbott  has  also  argued  for  dependence  upon  Josephus 
which  would  negative  Petrine  authorship.  The  resem- 
blances must  be  admitted,  but  we  cannot  build  with  any 
confidence  upon  them.    Mayor  explains  them  *  as  due  in 

a 


as       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

the  main  to  the  diiSusion  of  commonplaces  of  rhetorical 
study,  set  prefatory  phrases,  and  the  like,  which  were 
employed  by  those  who  learnt  Greek  in  later  life.' 

When  we  turn  to  the  external  evidence  we  find  that  its 
attestation  in  early  Christian  hterature  is  very  late, 
Origen  in  the  third  century  being  the  first  to  mention  it, 
and  apparently  with  doubt  as  to  its  authenticity. 
Eusebius  tells  us  that  he  had  not  received  it  as  canonical. 
It  is  extraordinary  if  the  Epistle  is  genuine  that  it  should 
be  first  mentioned  so  late  in  Christian  history,  and  that 
Eusebius  should  tell  us  that  the  tradition  he  had  received 
was  unfavourable  to  its  canonicity.  This  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  when  we  remember  that  it  was  not  to  an  obscure 
apostle  or  to  a  non-apostolic  writer  that  the  work  was 
attributed,  but  to  one  who  was  at  the  time  universally 
regarded  with  reverence.  There  were  other  writings 
besides  the  two  Epistles  attributed  to  him  to  which  Peter's 
name  was  attached,  notably  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter. 
These,  however,  were  not  ultimately  included  by  the 
Church  in  its  Canon,  a  fact  for  which  we  may  be  profoundly 
grateful.  Yet  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  comes  to  us  with 
better  attestation  of  authenticity  from  the  Early  Church 
than  the  Second  Epistle. 

The  suspicions  created  by  the  lateness  of  the  external 
evidence  and  the  dubiousness  with  which  it  is  expressed 
are  confirmed  by  the  internal  evidence.  In  the  first  place 
the  Epistle  brings  before  us  a  time  when  through  long  delay 
the  hope  of  the  Second  Coming  had  grown  faint.  There 
were  mockers  asking, '  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ? 
For,  from  the  day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things 
continue  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.* 
It  is  extremely  diflficult  to  beHeve  that  such  a  sentence  as 
this  could  have  been  written  by  the  apostle  Peter.  He 
was  himself  one  of  the  Fathers  on  whose  age  the  writer 
looked  back  as  to  a  distant  past.  Nor  is  it  probable  that 
in  his  time  the  hope  in  the  Second  Coming  should  have 


a.1  SECOND  PETER  AND  JUDB  99 

given  place  to  scepticism.  It  is  Irae  that  the  author 
speaks  in  the  future  tense,  but  a  consideration  of  the 
whole  passage  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  he  is  dealing 
with  a  state  of  things  which  either  actually  confronts  him 
or  which  he  anticipates  in  the  immediate  future.  In  the 
next  place  the  author's  reference  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul  is 
very  strange  in  the  time  and  on  the  lips  of  Peter.  They  are 
spoken  of  as  if  a  collection  of  them  had  been  formed ;  they 
had  already  been  the  object  of  considerable  misinter- 
pretation. What  is  most  remarkable  of  all  is  that  they  are 
spoken  of  as  Scripture.  It  will  not  therefore  seem  wonder- 
ful that  the  doubts  which  were  so  widely  entertained  in 
the  early  Church  revived  again  at  the  Reformation,  and 
that  a  large  number  of  scholars  in  the  conservative  as  well 
as  in  the  critical  camp  have  definitely  set  aside  the  ascrip- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  Peter.  The  date  cannot  be  brought 
down  below  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Origen  was 
acquainted  with  it,  and  probably  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
It  cannot  be  much  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  This  is  suggested  by  the  lateness  of  the  external 
evidence,  by  the  reference  to  the  Pauline  Epistles  not 
simply  as  a  collection  of  writings  but  as  canonical  Scripture 
which  the  heretics  have  wrested  to  their  own  destruction, 
and  by  the  type  of  false  teaching  which  is  attacked.  This 
date  is  also  confirmed  by  the  close  relationship  with  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter.  No  certain  conclusion  can  be  reached 
as  to  the  place  of  composition,  but  the  affinities  with 
Philo  and  Gement  of  Alexandria  point  to  Egypt,  in  which 
also  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  probably  written. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude  was  generally  accepted  as  authorita- 
tive by  the  close  of  the  second  century.  It  is  included  in 
the  Muratorian  Canon  and  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Tertullian  and  Origen.  The  omission  of  reference 
to  it  or  even  inclusion  in  lists  of  New  Testament  books 
may  be  accounted  for  by  its  brevity  and  by  the  objection 
felt  to  its  use  of  apocryphal  literature. 


100      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

The  Epistle  claims  to  be  by  Jude  the  brother  of  James. 
If  these  words  are  an  integral  part  of  the  Epistle  the 
reference  must  be  to  James  of  Jerusalem,  the  brother  of 
Jesus.  If  the  Epistle  is  not  the  work  of  this  Jude,  we  may 
either  suppose  that  to  secure  attention  to  the  letter  it  was 
written  in  Jude's  name,  against  which  we  have  the  diffi- 
culty of  accounting  for  the  choice  of  so  obscure  an 
authority,  or  we  may  suppose  that  the  author's  name  wae 
Jude  and  the  identification  with  the  brother  of  James 
was  due  to  a  later  hand.  Many  scholars  believe  that  the 
Epistle  cannot  have  been  written  before  the  second  century, 
at  a  time  when  Jude  the  brother  of  James  was  dead.  No 
weight  can  be  attached  to  the  quotation  of  apocryphal 
writings.  These  were  much  earlier  than  Jude's  day,  and 
there  is  no  tangible  reason  for  the  S/Ssumption  that  he 
would  have  hesitated  to  employ  them.  Still  less  can  we 
assume  that  he  would  not  have  employed  the  Pauline 
Epistles  with  which  the  writer  was  certainly  familiar. 
More  serious  is  the  argument  derived  from  the  reference 
to  the  false  teaching  which  is  often  taken  to  be  some  form 
of  antinomian  Gnosticism.  The  Gnostic  character  of  the 
false  teaching,  however,  cannot  be  proved,  and  immoral 
inferences  from  the  doctrine  of  grace  were  drawn  before 
the  second  century.  At  the  same  time  the  reference  would 
suit  very  well  the  libertine  Gnostics  of  the  second  century. 
The  age  of  the  apostles  it  is  also  said  lies  in  the  past  {w.  17, 
18),  and  they  are  referred  to  as  a  collective  body.  This 
is  certainly  not  impossible  in  a  brother  of  Christ,  though 
it  would  be  more  natural  in  a  later  writer.  The  balance 
of  probabihty  perhaps  inclines  against  the  authorship 
by  Jude  the  Lord's  brother,  but  there  are  no  decisive 
reasons  for  rejecting  the  traditional  view. 


m.J  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  101 


CHAPTER  Xn 

THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS 

The  Synaptic  Problem 

The  Grospels  of  Matthew,  Maxk  and  Luke  have  received 
the  not  very  happy  title  the  Synoptic  Gospels  from  the 
fact  that  they  largely  present  a  common  view  of  the 
Gospel  narrative,  so  that  they  may  be  frequently  arranged 
in  parallel  colmnns,  as  telling  substantially  the  same  story. 
This  fact  places  them  in  a  class  by  themselves,  it  being 
perhaps  the  only  known  example  of  a  threefold  biography 
which  could  be  treated  in  this  way.  The  agreement 
between  them  extends  often  to  the  minutest  details. 
Side  by  side  with  this  we  constantly  find  remarkable 
divergence.  It  is  this  combination  of  agreement  and 
difference  that  has  given  rise  to  what  is  known  as  the 
Synoptic  Problem.  The  problem  is  to  frame  a  theory 
which  shall  accoimt  for  the  relations  between  the  first 
three  Gospels,  setting  them  in  their  chronological  order, 
tracing  the  sources  from  which  they  have  been  compiled, 
and  explaining  both  the  coincidences  and  differences  which 
they  present.  Since  the  phenomena  are  very  complex, 
it  is  clear  that  a  complicated  rather  than  a  simple  solution 
will  be  required  to  do  them  justice. 

When  we  compare  the  Gospels  in  detail,  we  observe  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  alone  give  any  account  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  befora  His  ministry,  and  that  their  accounts  are 
completely  independent  of  each  other,  touching  at  very 
few  points  and  difficult  to  harmonise.     It  is  tlierefora 


102      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oa 

most  significant  that  when  the  two  authors  begin  to  tell 
the  story  of  the  ministry,  they  teU  it  in  the  same  way. 
It  is  natural  to  conclude  that  the  agreement  between 
Matthew  and  Luke  is  to  be  connected  with  the  introduction 
of  Mark.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  as  soon 
as  Mark  comes  to  an  end  Luke  and  Matthew  begin  to  differ 
again  in  the  incidents  they  relate.  The  original  ending 
of  Mark  seems  to  have  been  lost.  The  last  twelve  verses 
which  are  absent  in  our  best  MSS.  are  a  later  addition,  and 
Mark  breaks  off  suddenly  at  xvi.  8.  When  Matthew  and 
Luke  reach  this  point  their  agreement  ends  and  they  go 
different  ways.  Luke  and  Matthew  therefore  agree  in 
the  main  within  the  Umits  covered  by  the  Gospel  of  Mark. 
Outside  these  limits,  both  before  Mark  begins  and  after 
he  ends,  they  are  completely  independent.  Thus  Mark 
binds  Matthew  and  Luke  together.  An  interesting  fact, 
which  may  be  simply  mentioned  here,  is  that  the  order 
in  which  the  incidents  are  narrated  is  generally  the  order 
of  Mark.  Sometimes  all  three  agree  in  order,  but  where 
two  agree  Mark  is  practically  always  in  the  majority. 
Mark  and  Matthew  may  agree  against  Luke,  or  Luke  and 
Mark  against  Matthew ;  rarely,  if  ever,  Matthew  and  Luke 
against  Mark. 

But  while  it  is  true  that  outside  the  limits  of  Mark, 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  nothing  in  common,  they  have 
several  sections  in  common  within  these  limits  which  are 
not  found  in  Mark.  These  sections  consist  for  the  most 
part  of  speeches  not  of  narratives,  and  there  is  a  closer 
correspondence  between  Matthew  and  Luke  in  these  two 
sections  than  between  any  two  of  the  evangelists,  where 
all  three  cover  the  same  ground. 

Further,  with  the  exception  of  two  miracles  (Mark  vii. 
31-37,  viii.  22-26)  and  one  parable  (Mark  iv.  26-29),  the 
whole  of  Mark  has  parallels  in  Matthew  or  Luke  or  both. 
Of  course,  the  parallels  present  considerable  variation, 
and  Mark  has  isolated  verses  peculiar  to  himself,  bul 


m]  THE  SYNOPTIC  QOSPBLS  103 

tabstantially  with  tiie  exceptions  mentioned,  Mark  has 
nothing  which  is  not  found  in  one  or  both  of  the  other 
Synoptists.  On  the  other  hand,  both  Matthew  and  Lake 
have  a  large  amount  of  matter  to  be  found  in  neither  of 
the  other  Synoptiste. 

So  far,  the  correspondence  between  the  Gospels  referred 
to  has  been  general,  touching  the  selection  of  incidents 
or  discourses,  and  not  the  language  in  which  they  are 
preserved.  Even  so  we  are  driven  to  postulate  the  use  of 
a  common  source  or  sources.  It  cannot  be  accidental 
that  out  of  the  large  number  of  incidents  and  discourses 
in  the  ministry  of  Christ  the  few  which  are  selected  should 
be  in  the  three  Grospels  to  so  great  an  extent  the  same. 
If  the  authors  had  gone  to  work  independently,  it  is 
incredible  that  they  should  have  hit  on  such  large  agreement 
in  the  selection  of  incidents.  When  we  add  to  this  that 
the  order  is  largely  the  same  and  that  gaps  occur  at  the 
same  points,  the  conclusion  is  strengthened  that  we  must 
assign  these  coincidences  not  to  accident  but  to  employment 
of  common  sources.  This  is  substantiated  by  otiier  con- 
siderations. 

When  we  examine  the  Gospels  side  by  side  we  quickly 
discover  that  the  parallels  they  present  are  characterised 
by  remarkable  verbal  coincidences.  If  we  take  tiie 
Grospel  of  Mark  and  the  sections  parallel  to  it  in  the  other 
Synoptists  (the  so-called  Triple  Tradition)  we  find  that 
Mark  and  Matthew  have  in  common  nearly  fifty  per  cent, 
of  the  total  number  of  words  in  Mark,  while  Mark  and  Luke 
have  nearly  thirty-five  per  cent.^  While  this  is  so  in  the 
Triple  Tradition,  it  is  even  more  striking  in  the  Double 
Tradition,  that  is  in  the  matter  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke  which  is  not  found  in  Mark.  It  should  also  be 
pointed  out  that  these  figures  do  not  indicate  how  large 
the  agreement  often  is,  but  only  the  average  distributed 

>  The  itatistics  in  this  chapter  are  deriyed  from  calculations,  much  men 
elaborate  than  can  be  here  indicated,  made  seTeral  years  ago  by  the  writer. 


104      liJTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca. 

over  a  considerable  number  of  sections.  Thus  in  Mark 
ii.  18-22  we  have  129  words,  in  Matthew  ix.  14-17  103,  and 
in  Luke  v.  33-38  129.  In  this  section  58  words  are  common 
to  all  three,  and  in  addition  Mark  and  Matthew  have  23 
in  common,  Mark  and  Luke  22,  and  Matthew  and  Luke  2. 
That  is,  80  words  are  common  to  Mark  and  Matthew  and 
to  Mark  and  Luke,  while  60  are  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke.  In  the  speech  of  John  the  Baptist  to  those  who  came 
to  his  baptism,  Luke  and  Matthew  give  for  several  verses 
practically  the  same  report,  something  like  87  words  out 
of  90  being  found  in  both. 

It  is  clear  that  the  common  matter,  even  more  than  the 
common  selection  of  incidents,  and  the  common  order, 
demands  a  common  source,  and  this  has  been  generally 
admitted.  The  questions  that  arise  concern  the  number 
of  sources  and  their  character,  whether  oral  or  documen- 
tary. The  latter  point  may  be  taken  first.  The  theories 
that  have  been  put  forward  in  solution  of  the  Synoptic 
Problem  fall  into  two  classes,  the  oral  and  the  documentary. 
The  oral  theory  accounts  for  the  parallels,  which  our 
Synoptic  Gospels  present,  by  the  hypothesis  that  the 
writers  made  independent  use  of  an  oral  tradition.  It  is 
held  that  an  official  cycle  of  teaching  was  formed,  probably 
in  Jerusalem,  that  this  became  more  or  less  fixed,  and  that 
it  has  been  incorporated  by  our  Synoptists  without  passing 
to  them  through  documents.  The  documentary  theory, 
on  the  other  hand,  while  not  denying  that  oral  teaching 
may  represent  the  ultimate  source  of  our  Grospels,  accounts 
for  the  parallels  as  due  to  the  literary  use  of  a  common 
written  source  or  sources,  which  may  either  be  lost  sources 
or  one  or  more  of  our  Sjnioptic  Gospels.  Thus  each  of 
JUT  Gospels  may  be  completely  independent  of  the  others 
and  dependent  only  on  common  documents  which  have 
perished,  or  two  of  our  Gospels  may  have  used  a  third, 
or  one  of  our  Gospels  may  have  used  the  other  two,  and 
this  may  be  further  complicated  by  the  use  of  one  of  thes« 


xu,]  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  106 

two  by  the  other.  It  is  also  possible  that  one  or  two  may 
have  used  lost  sources  along  with  two  or  one  of  our  present 
Gospels.  It  is  clear  that  the  possibilities  are  very  numerous, 
and  probably  most  conceivable  forms  of  the  documentary 
theory  have  at  one  time  or  another  been  put  forward. 
The  oral  theory  does  not  admit  of  such  complex  variations. 

Several  considerations  may  be  urged  in  favour  of  the 
oral  theory.  It  is  clear  that  the  narratives  of  Christ's 
life  and  the  reports  of  His  teaching  were  first  given  to  the 
world  by  word  of  mouth  and  not  in  documents.  From 
the  formation  of  the  Church  it  was  felt  necessary  that  he, 
who  was  chosen  to  the  apostoUc  ofl&ce  to  be  a  witness  of 
the  Resurrection,  should  be  one  who  had  companied  with 
the  apostles  from  the  Baptising  by  John  to  the  Ascension 
(Acts  i.  21,  22).  Teaching  on  the  ministry  of  Jesus  must 
have  been  given  from  the  first  by  the  Apostles.  And  we 
have  evidence  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  actually  rests  on 
oral  teaching.  Papias  informs  us  that  Mark's  Gospel 
embodies  the  preaching  of  Peter  as  it  was  elicited  by  the 
needs  of  his  hearers.  Again  the  preference  of  the  Jews 
for  oral  teaching  may  also  be  urged  in  favour  of  this 
hj^thesis.  There  was  a  reluctance  to  commit  instruction 
to  writing,  it  was  considered  to  be  better  that  it  should  be 
stored  in  the  memory.  *  Commit  nothing  to  writing ' 
was  a  Rabbinical  maxim.  It  may  be  added  finally  that 
this  theory  gives  an  easy  account  of  the  differences  in  the 
Gospels.  Three  writers  independently  reproducing  the 
same  tradition  would  naturally  introduce  much  variation. 

These  arguments,  however,  are  far  from  substantiating 
the  oral  hypothesis.  They  make  it  probable  that  oral 
tradition  to  some  extent  Hes  behind  our  Grospels.  But 
so  much  is  generally  admitted  by  defenders  of  the 
documentary  theory.  The  dislike  of  writing  really  proves 
nothing.  For  if  it  did  not  prevent  our  three  Gospels  from 
being  written,  we  are  not  warranted  in  assuming  that  it 
prevented  earher  documents  from  being  similarly  com- 


106      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

posed,  nor  can  there  be  any  reason  why  the  writer  of  a 
document  such  as  one  of  our  evangelists,  should  object 
to  employ  documents  as  sources.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed 
that  Papias'  account  of  the  origin  of  Mark,  while  it  assigns 
it  to  oral  teaching,  is  yet  inconsistent  with  the  use  of  an 
oral  tradition  such  as  the  theory  postulates.  For  the 
latter  is  an  official  selection  of  incidents  and  discourses, 
largely  fixed  by  repetition  alike  in  order  and  language, 
whereas  Peter's  teaching  was  occasional  and  disconnected, 
drawn  forth  by  the  nec^ds  of  his  hearers,  and  in  no  sense 
systematic  teaching  as  to  the  ministry  of  Christ.  Nor 
must  we  press  unduly  the  argument  from  variations. 
The  standard  of  fideUty  to  which  the  evangelists  would 
feel  themselves  bound  in  reproducing  documents  would 
not  be  so  high  as  to  exclude  considerable  variation. 

But  not  only  are  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  oral 
theory  less  strong  than  they  seem  at  first  sight,  but  there 
are  most  serious  objections  to  it.  In  the  firet  place  there 
is  the  difficulty  as  to  the  formation  of  the  oral  tradition. 
To  begin  with,  we  have  to  account  for  two  traditions. 
If  we  assume  that  the  official  oral  Gospel  contained  only 
the  sections  common  to  all  three  Sjmoptists,  then  the 
question  arises  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  matter 
common  only  to  Matthew  and  Luke  ?  Are  their  coin- 
cidences to  be  accounted  for  by  the  use  of  a  common  oral 
tradition  ?  If  so,  where  did  this  spring  up,  and  had  it 
any  official  character  ?  If  not,  then  we  must  have  re- 
course to  a  documentary  source,  and  if  we  invoke  a  docu- 
mentary source  to  explain  the  Double  Tradition,  why  not 
also  to  explain  the  Triple  Tradition  ?  If  on  the  other 
hand  we  make  the  Double  Tradition  correspond  to  the 
original  oral  tradition,  then  the  difficulties  are  increased, 
for  we  should  have  to  explain  why  Mark  completely 
overlooks  it,  and  also  why  all  three  of  the  evangelists  have 
a  tradition  in  common,  viz.  the  Triple  Tradition,  quite 
distinct   from   the   official   oral   Grospel.    If  from   these 


xil]  the  synoptic  GOSPELS  107 

difficulties  we  take  refuge  in  the  assumption  that  the  oral 
Gospel  consisted  both  of  the  Double  and  the  Triple 
Traditions,  then  the  question  arises  why  Mark  should  have 
cut  out  so  much  of  it,  excluding  some  of  its  most  valuable 
portions  from  his  Gospel. 

In  the  next  place  it  is  difficult  to  explain  on  what 
principles  the  oral  tradition  was  formed.  Out  of  so 
large  a  number  of  incidents  why  should  Just  those 
have  been  selected  which  we  find  preserved  ?  In  a 
collection  made  by  an  individual  this  is  much  more  easy 
to  account  for  than  in  a  cycle  officially  formed,  with  the 
deUberate  iutention  of  giving  information  on  the  ministry 
and  teaching  of  Christ.  Papias'  account  of  the  origin  of 
Mark's  Gospel  supplies  some  sort  of  an  answer  to  the 
question  why  Mark  gives  us  the  selection  of  incidents  we 
find  in  his  work.  Peter's  object  was  not  to  give  systematic 
teaching  as  to  the  ministry  of  Christ,  but  to  meet  the 
needs  of  his  hearers  as  they  arose.  His  choice  was  thus 
determined  by  practical  necessities,  and  his  treatment 
was  homUetical  rather  than  historical.  There  is  another 
difficulty  connected  with  the  selection,  though  it  does  not 
affect  those  who  beUeve  that  Christ  did  not  visit  Jerusalem 
during  His  ministry  till  the  close  of  His  life.  It  is  generally 
supposed  that  the  oral  tradition  was  formed  in  Jerusalem. 
It  is  therefore  remarkable  that  the  Synoptists  omit  aU 
accoimt  of  the  Jerusalem  ministry  till  the  Triumphal 
Entry.  That  the  minds  of  the  disciples  turned  with 
fondness  to  the  Galilean  ministry  was  natural,  but  it  is 
very  strange  that  the  tradition  should  be  so  detached  from 
the  scenes  amid  which  it  was  formed. 

It  is  also  difficult  on  the  oral  hypothesis  to  explain  the 
degree  of  fixity  which  was  reached  by  the  tradition.  This 
difficulty  affects  the  selection  of  incidents,  the  order  in 
which  they  were  arranged,  and  the  language.  The  first 
of  these  points  has  been  touched  upon,  so  far  as  concerns 
ihe  original  selection.    But  in  the  present  connexion  the 


108      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ck. 

difficulty  touches  not  the  choice  of  certain  incidents,  but 
the  method  by  which  this  first  selection  became  per- 
manently fixed.  It  scarcely  seems  probable  that  a  teacher 
should  confine  himself  strictly  to  the  same  cycle  of  stories, 
and  repeat  these,  and  these  only,  so  frequently,  that 
the  limits  of  his  narration  should  come  to  be  so  fixed 
as  in  our  Triple  Tradition.  But  it  is  further  noteworthy 
that  not  only  the  selection  of  narratives,  but  the  order  also 
is  largely  fixed.  The  order  of  Mark  is  usually  followed 
by  one  if  not  both  of  the  other  Synoptists.  It  would  not 
be  so  difficult  to  account  for  the  order  being  fixed  in  oral 
tradition,  if  this  were  chronological.  But  Mark's  order 
is  probably  not  chronological.  We  have  then  to  accoimt 
for  the  formation  of  an  artificial  order.  It  is  quite  easy 
to  suppose  that  a  teacher  narrated  his  set  of  incidents 
in  any  given  order  once ;  what  is  very  difficult  to  believe 
is  that  he  again  and  again  repeated  them  in  the  same 
order,  unless  he  was  guided  to  it  by  some  definite 
principle.  But  no  such  priuciple  seems  to  be  discernible 
in  Mark's  order.  The  difficulty  is  not  that,  once  the  order 
was  fixed,  it  should  be  remembered,  it  Ues  a  stage  further 
back  in  the  fixing  itself.  A  similar  difficulty  attaches 
to  the  stereotyping  of  the  language.  Are  we  to  imagine 
that  in  the  course  of  repetition  the  language  attained  such 
fixity  of  form  as  we  often  find  in  the  parallel  sections  of 
our  Synoptists  ?  The  verbal  coincidence  as  it  is  found 
there  is  very  large,  and  the  actual  fixity  of  form  in  the 
oral  tradition  must  have  been  much  larger,  when  we 
allow  for  the  imperfect  memories  of  the  writers.  It  is 
barely  credible  that  an  unwritten  series  of  narratives 
should  have  been  told  with  such  little  variation. 

But  this  does  not  exhaust  the  objections  to  the  oral 
theory.  When  the  oral  tradition  had  been  formed,  we 
have  the  difficulty  attaching  to  the  view  that  it  can  have 
been  so  faithfully  remembered  and  reproduced  by  three 
writers  independently,  even  granting  that  memories  were 


xn.]  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  10» 

exceptionally  powerful.  It  is  perhaps  a  further  objection 
that  the  tradition  must  have  been  formed  in  Greek, 
whereas  we  should  more  naturally  have  expected  it  to  be 
in  Aramaic.  The  coincidences  in  the  Greek  are  such  that 
they  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  theory  that  the 
writers  translated  independently  from  a  common  Aramaic 
original.     The  common  source  must  have  been  in  Greek. 

It  is  also  difficult  to  beUeve  that  the  insignificant  phrases 
which  are  often  found  in  parallel  texts  could  have  been 
preserved  in  oral  tradition.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  such 
dislocation  of  the  true  order  as  the  story  of  John  the 
Baptist's  imprisonment  would  have  been  found  both  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  and  at  the  same  point,  if  they  had  been 
depending  simply  on  oral  tradition.  Probably  the  words 
'  Let  him  that  readeth  understand '  in  Matt.  xxiv.  15 
and  Mark  xiii.  14  attest  the  employment  of  a  document, 
at  least  for  this  section.  The  interpretation  let  him 
that  readeth  Daniel  understand  is  possible  but  improbable, 
since  the  reference  to  Daniel  occurs  only  in  Matthew  and  is 
apparently  an  editorial  note.  If  so  the  words  cannot  be 
words  of  Jesus,  for  He  would  have  said  '  Let  him  that 
heareth  understand.'  The  reference  must  accordingly 
be  to  him  who  read  the  address  of  Jesus.  Since  it  is 
incredible  that  the  two  evangelists  should  have  inde- 
pendently added  this  warning  at  this  precise  point,  one 
must  have  copied  from  the  other,  or  both  have  taken  it 
from  a  common  source.  But  this  source  cannot  have  been 
oral,  for  oral  tradition  is  not  read  but  heard.  It  must 
therefore  have  been  written,  and  if  so,  a  document  is 
'  necessarily  implied. 

If  then  the  documentary  hypothesis  is  adopted,  the 
next  question  concerns  the  documents,  which  have  to  be 
regarded  as  the  sources  of  our  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  will 
be  convenient  to  keep  the  Triple  Tradition  and  the  Double 
Tradition  distinct.  The  former  may  be  examined  first. 
It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  a  documentary  theory 


110      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

may  assume  a  large  number  of  forms.  It  is  therefore 
well  to  avoid  any  d  stalled  statement  of  all  that  are  possible 
in  the  abstract,  still  more  any  examination  of  them.  The 
simplest  course  is  to  determine  which  of  the  S3aioptists 
presents  the  Triple  Tradition  in  its  most  primitive  form. 
The  answer  to  this  will  at  once  exclude  a  large  number 
of  theories  possible  in  the  abstract,  and  it  will  then  remain 
only  to  discover  whether  or  no  we  have  to  admit  the 
existence  of  a  lost  source  for  the  Triple  Tradition  more 
primitive  still. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  Mark  binds  Matthew 
and  Luke  together  in  respect  to  the  general  plan  of  the 
Gospels.  This  supplies  a  very  cogent  argument  in  favour 
of  the  priority  of  Mark.  This  alone  gives  an  adequate 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  other  Gospels  begin  to  tell 
the  same  story  at  the  precise  point  where  Mark  begins 
and  cease  to  do  so  Just  where  he  ends.  If  Mark  had  had 
Matthew  and  Luke  before  him  this  would  have  been 
unaccountable,  and  indeed,  any  theory  other  than  that 
which  regards  Mark  as  preserving  the  most  primitive 
type,  would  similarly  fail  to  explain  the  facts.  This  is 
strengthened  by  the  further  fact  that  the  order  is  pre- 
dominantly that  of  Mark.  If  where  two  agree  against  the 
third,  Mark  is  always  in  the  majority,  this  can  only  be 
because  his  order  is  the  most  original.  The  deviations 
from  it  by  Matthew  and  Luke  can  be  explained  without 
difficulty,  so  that  they  form  no  objection  to  its  being  taken 
as  the  fundamental  order. 

The  same  conclusion  results  from  an  examination  of 
the  verbal  coincidences.  Of  the  words  coromon  only 
to  two  evangelists  in  the  Triple  Tradition,  Mark  and 
Matthew  have  five  to  six  times  as  many,  Mark  and 
Luke  twice  to  three  times  as  many  as  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  in  common.  Mark  has  therefore  much  more 
in  common  with  Matthew  and  with  Luke  than  they 
have    with    each    other.      This   also   substantiates    the 


XII.1  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  111 

priority  of  Mark.  Further,  if  on  the  contrary  we 
assumed  that  Mark  used  Matthew  and  Luke,  we  should 
have  to  admit  that  he  has  contrived  to  get  into  his 
narrative  from  four-fifths  to  five-sixths  of  the  matter 
common  to  both,  and  has  besides  this  borrowed  more 
than  thirty  per  cent,  of  the  matter  peculiar  to  Matthew 
and  fifteen  per  cent,  of  that  pecuUar  to  Luke.  And  yet 
having  compiled  his  narrative  in  this  laborious  and  com- 
plicated way,  it  turns  out  to  be  simple,  graphic,  and 
straightforward  in  a  very  high  degree.  It  may  safely 
be  said  that  it  is  barely  credible  that  this  should  have 
happened,  and  the  evidence  here  as  elsewhere  points 
unmistakably  to  the  preservation  of  the  earliest  form  in 
Mark.  It  must,  however,  be  pointed  out  that  this  does 
not  account  for  the  words  which  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
in  common  which  are  not  found  in  Mark.  The  difficulty 
of  accounting  for  them  on  the  theory  that  these  Gospels 
are  based  on  Mark  has  led  to  the  formulation  of  several 
hypotheses,  which  must  be  mentioned  later.  Provisionally 
the  priority  of  Mark  may  be  taken  as  made  good.  But 
this  does  not  prove  that  Mark  is  the  source  of  the  Triple 
Tradition.  It  may  simply  represent  it  more  faithfully 
than  any  surviving  Gospel,  but  the  actual  source  may  be 
lost.  The  consideration  of  this  point  may,  however, 
be  deferred  for  the  present. 

We  may  now  pass  to  the  sections  common  only  to 
Matthew  and  Luke.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that 
these  consist  for  the  most  part  of  speeches,  and  that  the 
verbal  coincidence  between  the  Gospels  in  this  Double 
Tradition  is  larger  than  that  in  the  Triple  Tradition. 
We  may  assume  that  a  document,  now  usually  called  Q 
{i.e.  Qudle,  the  German  word  for '  source '),  Ues  behind  these 
sections,  from  which  our  first  and  third  evangelists  have 
drawn.  Since  they  consist  for  the  most  part  of  discourses, 
it  is  a  probable  conjecture  that  this  document  is  to  be 
identified   with  the   Logia  of  Matthew,   mentioned   by 


112      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch 

Papias.  His  words  are  *  Matthew  composed  the  Logia 
in  Hebrew,  and  each  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able.* 
The  word  Logia  may,  no  doubt,  be  used  for  a  collection  of 
narratives  and  speeches  such  as  our  First  Gospel,  with  a 
Hebrew  original  of  which  it  has  commonly  been  identified. 
But  the  word  more  naturally  means  '  discourses,'  and  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  Papias  is  referring  to  a  Hebrew 
or  Aramaic  original  of  the  First  Gospel.  For  we  have 
strong  reason  for  beUeving  that  such  a  Semitic  original 
never  existed.  Quite  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  style 
of  the  First  Gospel  is  not  that  of  a  translation,  it  is  decisive 
that  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Mark  has  been  employed  in  ita 
composition.  Not  only  is  it  difficult  to  identify  our  First 
Gospel  with  a  translation  of  Matthew's  work,  but  it  is 
most  improbable  that  one  of  the  twelve  apostles,  an 
eyewitness  of  the  events,  should  have  used  the  work  of 
Mark,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  and  neither  saw  nor  heard 
a  great  deal  of  what  he  relates.  It  follows  from  this  that 
the  First  Gospel  can  hardly  be  the  work  of  Matthew. 
But,  if  not,  the  question  arises  why  does  it  bear  Matthew's 
name  ?  It  can  only  be  because  it  has  an  intimate  con- 
nexion with  that  apostle,  embodying  a  tradition  derived 
from  him.  It  can  hardly  be  an  accidental  coincidence, 
that  criticism  should  postulate  a  collection  of  discourses 
as  the  source  for  the  common  sections  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  and  that  tradition  should  assert  that  Matthew 
compiled  a  collection  of  discourses.  The  conclusion  thus 
becomes  highly  probable  that  the  Source  of  the  Double 
Tradition  is  the  collection  of  speeches  compiled  by  Matthew, 
of  which  Papias  speaks.  We  must  suppose,  then,  that 
this  was  used  independently  in  the  composition  of  the 
First  and  Third  Gospels.  And  since  the  coincidences 
are  so  large  in  Greek,  it  seems  necessary  to  assume  that 
the  authors  used  for  the  most  part  the  same  translation. 
And  we  thus  understand  why  the  First  Gospel  bears  the 
nam««  of  Matthew,  because  though  it  is  not  from  his  hand 


xn.]  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  118 

tt  incorporates  the  substance  of  his  lost  work.  We  thus 
gain  as  the  main  solution  of  the  Synoptic  Problem,  the 
almost  universally  accepted  Two-Document  hypothesis, 
namely  that  our  First  and  Third  Gospels  have  used  as  their 
two  common  sources,  a  document  most  faithfully  preserved 
in  the  Grospel  of  Mark  and  a  document  largely  consisting 
of  speeches  and  sayings,  probably  a  Greek  translation  of 
the  Logia  of  Matthew. 

It  should  be  added,  however,  that  some  scholars  who 
fully  accept  the  two-document  hypothesis  refuse  to  believe 
that  we  should  identify  the  Logia  referred  to  by  Papias 
with  the  common  source  of  tiie  Double  Tradition.  Some 
suppose  that  he  intended  the  complete  Gospel,  but  errone- 
ously beUeved  that  this  was  a  translation  of  the  Semitic 
original,  and  though  they  recognise  that  the  criticism 
of  the  Gospels  forces  us  to  postulate  a  common  source  for 
the  Double  Tradition,  consider  that  we  have  no  right  to 
assume  that  this  was  what  Papias  had  in  mind.  Another 
view  has  been  put  forward  by  Professor  Burkitt.  He  also 
agrees  that  we  must  postulate  a  lost  document  as  a  common 
source  employed  by  Matthew  and  Luke  in  addition  to  Mark. 
He  thinks,  however,  that  this  is  not  to  be  identified  with 
the  Logia.  He  suggests  that  Papias  had  in  mind  rather 
a  collection  of  Messianic  proof  texts  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  of  course  significant  that  such  passages  have 
great  prominence  in  Matthew,  and  it  is  probable  that  at  a 
very  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  collections 
of  these  texts  were  drawn  up  for  use  by  Christians  in 
their  controversies  with  Jews.  At  the  same  time  these 
passages  constitute  a  rather  small  part  of  the  entire  work, 
so  that  it  is  not  quite  easy  to  understand  why  the  name 
Matthew  should  have  become  attached  to  the  whole 
Gospel.  It  is  easier  to  understand  if  it  incorporated  so 
large  a  work  as  the  collection  of  discourses.  It  might 
of  course  be  urged  that  we  have  no  more  reason  for  trans- 
ferring the  name  of  Matthew  from  the  Logia  to  the  First 

H 


114      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

Gospel  than  to  the  Third.  But  the  authorship  of  the 
Third  Gospel  by  Luke  was  a  fixed  point  in  tradition, 
guaranteed  by  the  fact  that  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel 
was  also  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is 
true  that  no  certainty  in  the  matter  is  attainable,  but  it 
seems  still  to  remain  the  most  probable  view  that  the  work 
mentioned  by  Papias  was  the  Semitic  original  of  Q.  It 
is  more  likely  that  the  original  language  was  Aramaic  than 
Hebrew. 

We  may  now  return  to  the  question  whether  the  First 
and  Third  Gospels  were  based  on  Mark  or  on  a  document 
similar  to  but  not  identical  with  our  Second  Gospel.  One 
of  the  main  reasons  for  accepting  the  latter  alternative  is 
the  existence  of  coincidences  between  Matthew  and  Luke 
in  the  Triple  Tradition  which  are  not  found  in  Mark. 
Largely  these  may  be  explained  as  due  to  independent 
revision  of  the  same  document.  In  this  way  we  may 
explain  the  identical  substitution  of  more  literary  turns  of 
speech  for  Mark's  blunter  and  harsher  forms  of  expression, 
and  the  consequential  alterations  which  are  sometimes 
considerable,  or  the  modifications  and  suppressions  which 
were  prompted  by  reverence.  But  this  does  not  cover  all 
the  cases  of  coincident  variation  from  Mark,  ajad  various 
theories  have  been  put  forward  to  account  for  the  un- 
explained residuum.  The  first  is  that  Mark  lay  before  the 
first  and  third  evangelists  in  another  form  than  that  with 
which  we  are  familiar.  Usually  it  has  been  supposed 
by  those  who  hold  this  view  that  they  used  an  earlier 
Mark  {Urmarkus).  We  need  not  argue  for  an  earlier 
Mark  on  the  ground  which  has  sometimes  been  put  forward 
that  our  Gospel  does  not  correspond  to  the  description  of 
Mark's  work  given  by  Papias,  and  that  we  must  therefore 
suppose  that  this  description  originally  applied  to  another 
form  of  the  Second  Gospel  than  that  which  we  possess. 
In  all  probability  it  applies  suflElciently  well.  The  state- 
ment that  it  was  not  in  order  is  discounted  by  its  polemical 


xil]  the  synoptic  GOSPELS  IIB 

intention.  Its  order  varied  from  that  which  Papias 
regarded  as  correct.  But  our  different  verdict  on  this 
point  should  not  lead  us  to  infer  that  Papias  had  a  different 
work  before  him.  Of  course  the  further  question  is  raised 
as  to  how  far  he  was  warranted  in  afi&rming  that  the  preach- 
ing of  Peter  lay  behind  Mark's  work.  But  that  is  a  point 
which  would  probably  tell  against  an  earlier  Mark  almost 
as  much  as  against  the  present  Mark.  In  the  main  it  is 
hkely  that  the  authors  of  the  First  and  Third  Gospels 
had  Mark  before  them  practically  in  its  present  form, 
apart  of  course  from  the  spurious  ending.  In  any  case 
the  difference  between  the  two  was  probably  so  slight 
that  substantially  we  might  speak  of  them  as  the  same 
book.  It  is  perhaps  more  probable  that  if  their  edition 
of  Mark  varied  from  ours  it  was  a  later  rather  than  an 
earUer  that  they  used.  If  we  assumed  that  Mark  had  been 
slightly  revised  and  that  it  was  this  revised  edition  which 
was  employed  by  the  two  evangelists,  we  should  go  a  good 
way  towards  meeting  the  particular  difficulty  in  question. 
Of  course  this  conclusion  does  not  settle  the  question 
whether  Mark  may  not  once  have  existed  in  a  briefer  form. 
Wellhausen  for  example  argues  that  a  fairly  large  section 
in  it  is  secondary.  But  he  leaves  the  question  open 
whether  this  secondary  element  was  introduced  during  the 
oral  or  the  written  stage  of  the  Mark  tradition.  And  he 
considers  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used  it  in  its  present 
form. 

The  second  theory  is  that  held  by  Holtzmann, 
Weizsacker,  Wendt  and  Allen,  that  Luke  had  a  certain 
knowledge  of  Matthew.  The  great  objection  to  this  is 
that  he  should  have  neglected  so  much  that  is  peculiar 
to  the  First  Gospel.  Possibly  he  had  only  a  cursory  know- 
ledge of  it,  and  in  any  case  he  could  only  have  made  a  very 
subsidiary  use  of  it.  Even  allowing  this,  it  seems  strange 
that  this  knowledge  should  have  left  such  slight  traces. 
The  third  is  the  view  of  B.  Weiss  that  Mark  knew  and 


118      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [cB 

employed  Q.  This  accounts  perhaps  better  than  either 
of  the  other  theories  for  the  phenomena.  For  if  all  three 
Synoptists  drew  from  Q  and  the  first  and  third  copied  it 
faithfully  but  the  second  modified  it  in  the  cases 
mentioned,  this  would  satisfactorily  explain  the  coin- 
cidences of  Matthew  and  Luke  which  are  not  in  Mark, 
as  well  as  their  more  primitive  form.  The  chief  objection 
to  this  view  is  that  if  Mark  knew  Q  he  should  have  made 
such  sparing  use  of  the  work,  omitting  in  fact  its  most 
valuable  features.  No  theory  is  quite  satisfactory,  and  the 
problem  is  perhaps  not  yet  ripe  for  solution.  Possibly  no 
theories  of  the  kind  will  ultimately  be  found  necessary. 
If  we  allow  for  the  influence  of  oral  tradition,  for  the 
possibihty  that  Matthew  and  Luke  used  a  revised  edition 
of  Mark,  and  for  the  assimilation  of  the  text  of  Matthew 
to  that  of  Luke,  or  the  text  of  Luke  to  that  of  Matthew, 
the  phenomena  may  be  suflficiently  explained. 

Since  Q  has  been  lost  the  question  arises  whether  we  can 
reconstruct  it.  The  analogy  of  the  companion  document 
warns  us  that  such  an  attempt  can  be  only  partially 
successful.  If  the  single  mutilated  copy  of  Mark  from 
which  all  our  copies  have  apparently  descended  had  dis- 
appeared, we  could  not  have  reconstructed  it  by  a  com- 
parison of  Matthew  and  Luke.  We  could  not  even  argue 
that  identical  language  in  Matthew  and  Luke  must  have 
been  derived  from  Mark.  Moreover,  where  Matthew  and 
Luke  both  abbreviate,  much  of  Mark  would  have 
irretrievably  disappeared.  We  have  therefore  to  allow 
for  the  probability  that  the  same  causes  may  have  pre- 
vented a  complete  preservation  of  Q  even  in  sections 
which  have  been  taken  over  by  both  Gospels.  It  is  also 
possible  that  some  sections  in  Q  have  been  included  by 
neither  evangelist,  nor  can  we  feel  any  great  confidence 
in  assigning  to  Q  non-Marcan  matter  found  only  in  one 
of  the  Synoptists,  though  probably  such  sections  exist. 
Some  conclusions,  however,  seem  to  be  fairly  warrante(L 


MiiJ]  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  117 

The  document  consisted  in  the  main  of  sayings  and  dis- 
courses, but  not  exclusively  so.  Short  introductions 
giving  the  occasion  would  naturally  be  inserted,  such  as 
the  mention  of  the  fact  that  John  sent  his  disciples  from 
prison  to  Jesus.  It  contained  one  or  two  complete  narra- 
tives such  as  the  story  of  the  Temptation  and  the  healing 
of  the  centurion's  servant.  The  most  interesting  question 
of  aU  is  whether  it  contained  the  history  of  the  Passion 
and  the  Resurrection.  Grenerally  this  has  been  denied, 
though  Burkitt  has  recently  argued  that  Luke's  Passion 
story  was  largely  derived  from  Q.  If  the  usual  opinion  is 
correct,  we  ought  not  to  infer  that  Q  was  written  before  the 
Crucifixion.  The  author  probably  did  not  intend  to 
write  a  Grospel  in  our  sense  of  the  term,  but  to  collect  the 
sayings  and  discourses  of  Jesus.  It  would,  in  fact,  be 
more  reasonable  to  infer  that  he  was  already  acquainted 
with  a  Gospel  in  which  the  story  of  Christ's  Ministry, 
Passion  and  Resurrection  was  recorded,  though  it  is  by 
no  means  necessary  to  assume  this,  still  less  to  argue  that 
he  must  have  been  acquainted  with  Mark. 

An  important  element  in  the  reconstruction  is  the 
decision  we  form  as  to  the  use  of  Q  by  the  Synoptists. 
It  has  been  mentioned  aheady  that  B.  Weiss  thinks  that 
Q  was  used  by  Mark.  This  would  naturally  imply  that 
Q  contained  a  good  deal  more  than  is  commonly  assigned 
to  it.  Von  Soden  on  the  other  hand  argues  that  Mark 
obviously  was  acquainted  with  Q,  because  he  has  included 
so  few  discourses.  Both  suggestions  are  precarious.  So 
far  as  we  know,  the  two  documents  were  quite  independent. 
A  less  intangible  but  rather  perplexing  problem  is  raised 
by  the  question,  Is  Q  better  preserved  in  Matthew  or 
in  Luke  ?  So  far  as  arrangement  is  concerned,  the  pro- 
babihties  favour  the  greater  originality  of  Luke.  It  has 
long  been  observed  that  Matthew  exhibits  a  marked 
tendency  to  combine  sayings  or  brief  discourses  into 
larger  wholes.    These  are  often  foimd  in  detached  frag- 


118      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

ments  in  Luke,  frequently  and  perhaps  usually  in  a  more 
appropriate  historical  setting.  The  most  striking  example 
of  this  is  that  of  Luke's  parallels  to  Matthew's  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  The  corresponding  sermon  in  Luke  is 
almost  one-third  of  the  length  of  Matthew's.  Yet  the 
parts  absent  from  Luke's  version  are  almost  all  to  be 
found  scattered  up  and  down  in  his  Gospel.  If  Q  con- 
tained the  Sermon  in  the  form  in  which  Matthew  gives  it, 
it  is  very  hard  to  beUeve  that  Luke  should  have  broken 
it  up  and  distributed  the  fragments  here  and  there  in  his 
Gospel,  supplying  appropriate  historical  introductions. 
If,  however,  it  existed  much  as  in  Luke,  it  seems  quite 
natural  that  the  author  of  the  First  Gospel,  with  his 
tendency  to  group  similar  sections  together,  should  have 
taken  these  fragments  and  combined  them  with  the 
sermon.  Probably  this  apphes  to  the  reproduction  as  a 
whole.  The  order  of  Q  is  better  preserved  in  Luke  than 
in  Matthew,  though  for  a  large  part  of  the  material  the 
order  of  the  two  sufficiently  coincides  to  enable  its  main 
outline  to  be  recovered.  This  agreement  makes  it  also 
probable  that  most  if  not  all  the  non-Marcan  matter  con- 
tained both  in  Matthew  and  Luke  belongs  to  Q.  It  is 
another  question,  however,  which  of  the  two  evangelists 
has  reproduced  most  faithfully  the  phraseology  of  Q. 
On  this  point  scholars  differ,  some  preferring  Luke's  version 
in  substance  if  not  in  form,  while  others  prefer  that  of 
Matthew.  It  is  not  possible  in  our  space  to  investigate 
the  question.  The  present  writer  can  only  say  that  he 
is  incUned  on  the  whole  to  give  the  preference  to  Luke. 
He  considers  that  no  general  rule  can  safely  be  laid  down, 
and  that  each  case  must  be  decided  on  its  merits. 

The  date  of  Q  cannot  be  settled  with  any  confidence. 
It  must  be  earher  than  Matthew  and  Luke,  but  since  the 
date  of  these  Gospels  is  very  imcertain,  we  cannot  infer 
anything  with  confidence  from  its  employment  in  them. 
Irenaeus  tells  us  that  Matthew  wrote  while  Peter  and  Paul 


tn.]  THE  SYNOPTIC  G0SPEI5  119 

«reie  preaching  and  founding  the  Church  in  Rome.  The 
form  of  the  statement  hardly  inspires  confidence,  and 
Irenaeus  was  thinking  of  our  First  Gospel.  It  is  quite 
possible,  however,  that  a  date  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixties 
might  be  assigned  to  Q.  If  the  reference  to  Zachariah 
the  son  of  Barachiah  in  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  Luke  zi.  51 
belonged  to  Q,  it  might  be  necessary  to  fix  the  date  some- 
what later.  Assuming  that  the  Zachariah  intended  is 
the  man  who  was  killed  by  the  Zealots  in  a.d.  67  or  68 
shortly  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  Q  would  have  to  be 
at  least  as  late  as  67.  Wellhausen  has  recently  argued 
strongly  for  this  identification,  which  has  received  the 
assent  of  Jiilicher,  but  Hamack  considers  that  it  is  im- 
possible and  that  in  any  case  it  is  probable  that  the  words 
'  son  of  Barachiah '  did  not  belong  to  Q.  The  work  seems 
to  have  been  written  for  the  Chrislaans  of  Palestine  before 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple. 

That  in  addition  to  Mark  and  Q  other  sources  were 
employed  by  Matthew  and  Luke  is  very  probable,  especially 
in  the  case  of  Luke,  who  in  fact  hints  as  much  in  the 
preface  to  his  Gospel.  But  here  we  are  left  for  the  most 
part  to  conjecture.  It  should  be  added,  however,  that 
this  problem,  especially  as  regards  Luke,  has  recently  been 
the  subject  of  some  extremely  suggestive  discussions. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark. 

Papias  gives  an  account  of  the  origin  of  Mark  which  is  so 
important  that  it  must  be  quoted  at  length.  The  elder 
who  is  quoted  as  the  authority  for  the  statement  is  appa- 
rently the  presbyter  John.  '  And  the  Elder  said  this  also  : 
lilark  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down 
accurately  everything  that  he  remembered,  without 
however  recording  in  order  what  was  either  said  or  done 
by  Christ.  For  neither  did  he  hear  the  Lord,  nor  did  he 
foUow  him  ;    but  afterwards,  as  I  said  (attended)  Peter, 


120      INTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oft 

who  adapted  his  instructions  to  the  needs  (of  his  hearers) 
but  had  no  design  of  giving  a  connected  account  of  the 
Lord's  oracles.  So  then  Mark  made  no  mistake,  while  he 
thus  wrote  down  some  things  as  he  remembered  them ; 
for  he  made  it  his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he 
had  heard,  or  to  set  down  any  false  statement  therein* 
(quoted  from  Lightfoot's  translation).  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  on  the 
statement  that  the  Gospel  is  not  in  order,  since  this  is 
suggested  by  the  elder's  preference  for  the  order  of  another 
Gospel,  probably  John.  Papias  accounts  for  the  diver- 
gence from  the  true  order  by  the  statement  that  Peter's 
treatment  of  the  life  of  Jesus  was  homiletical  rather  than 
chronological.  Probably,  however,  we  should  be  right  in 
tnisting  his  statement  to  the  extent  of  recognising  that 
reminiscences  of  Peter  do  Ue  behind  the  Second  Gospel. 
Peter's  prominence  in  it  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  simply 
by  the  fact  that  he  was  the  most  important  member  of  the 
apostoUc  band,  for  some  of  the  incidents  are  too  trivial 
to  have  found  their  way  into  a  story  of  Christ's  ministry 
had  it  not  been  for  the  personal  interest  which  they  had 
for  Peter.  Yet  the  Gospel  is  not  a  mere  reproduction  of 
Peter's  preaching.  Even  on  Papias'  own  showing  the 
arrangement  of  the  material,  which  is  extremely  important, 
was  not  due  to  Peter.  The  apostle  gave  only  an  accidental 
collection  of  incidents  and  sayings  to  meet  the  needs  of  his 
hearers.  Mark  has  so  arranged  his  material  as  to  repro- 
duce some  of  the  main  lines  of  the  historical  development. 
It  is  probable  that  in  addition  to  the  arrangement  some  of 
the  material  itself  was  not  derived  from  Peter,  and  that  not 
on  account  of  its  legendary  character  but  for  reasons  of 
literary  criticism  which  do  not  depend  on  a  particular 
theory  of  the  universe.  The  eschatological  discourse  in 
chapter  xiii.,  which  possibly  incorporates  a  small  inde- 
pendent apocalypse,  has  apparently  been  taken  from  a 
written   source.      Moreover,    the    presence    of    doublets 


xn.1  THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  111 

suggests  that  a  non-Petrine  version  of  the  same  mcident 
occasionally  stands  side  by  side  with  the  Petrine. 

There  is  no  substantial  reason  for  doubting  the  traditional 
authorship.  The  titles  of  the  Gospels  are  not  of  course 
original,  but  they  are  very  early,  and  they  are  probably 
intended  to  claim  direct  authorship.  In  the  case  of  all  the 
Synoptists  they  are  corroborated  by  unbroken  tradition, 
and  no  plausible  reason  can  be  suggested  why  Mark 
should  have  been  chosen  for  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel 
if  he  had  no  hand  in  it.  It  is  true  that  he  was  connected 
with  Peter,  but  if  Petrine  authorship  was  to  be  claimed 
it  would  have  been  simpler  to  assign  it  to  him  outright, 
in  spite  of  the  references  to  him  in  the  third  person.  It  is 
of  course  possible  that  the  Second  Gospel  is  the  work  of  a 
later  writer  incorporating  an  earUer  work  of  Mark  (so 
Von  Soden  and  Schiirer),  but  the  uniformity  of  style  makes 
it  more  probable  that  we  have  to  do  with  the  same  author 
throughout.  The  work  seems  to  have  come  down  to  us  in  a 
mutilated  form.  In  spite  of  Wellhausen's  opinion  to  the 
contrary,  it  is  most  improbable  that  it  could  have  ended 
with  xvi.  8.  Possibly  accident  prevented  the  Gospel 
from  being  completed,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  it  was 
finished,  though  whether  we  are  in  a  position  to  infer  its 
conclusion  from  the  close  of  Matthew  or  John  xxi.  is  very 
problematical.  Since  all  our  copies  are  derived  from  the 
mutilated  copy,  we  may  conclude  that  the  Gospel  was  at 
one  time  all  but  extinct.  It  is  very  striking  that  it  should 
have  been  preserved  at  all  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
almost  entirely  incorporated  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and 
that  its  tone  was  much  less  congenial  to  Christian  piety 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.  The  tradition  of  its 
connexion  with  Peter  probably  saved  it  for  the  world. 

Nothing  certain  can  be  affirmed  with  reference  to  the 
place  of  composition.  Gement  of  Alexandria  says  that 
it  was  written  in  Rome,  and  this  is  not  improbable  if  we 
accept  the  tradition  of  Peter's  residence  in  Rome  and  con- 


118      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

Bexion  with  the  Second  Gospel.  Wellhausen  arguee  that 
Jerusalem  is  the  most  probable  on  the  ground  that  the  oral 
tradition  is  likely  to  have  been  first  committed  to  writing 
in  the  place  where  it  was  current.  But  this  impUes  a  very 
sceptical  attitude  towards  the  Petrine  origin  of  the  Gospel. 
According  to  Irenaeus  the  Gospel  was  written  after  the 
death  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  this  is  intrinsically  more 
probable  than  the  later  statement  of  Clement  of  Alexandria 
that  it  was  written  in  Peter's  lifetime  but  without  his 
co-operation.  Some  scholars  place  its  composition  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  it  is  more  likely  that  it 
was  somewhat  earlier.  We  have  therefore  as  the  probable 
limits  A.D.  64  and  a.d.  70.  The  consideration  of  the 
genuineness  of  Mark  zvi.  9-20  belongs  mainly  to  Textual 
Criticism.  The  MS.  evidence  is  in  itself  almost  conclusive 
against  il,  and  the  internal  evidence  is  almost  as  clear, 
both  as  regards  connexion  with  the  preceding  context 
and  characteristics.  Mr.  F.  C.  Conybeare  discovered  in 
1891  a  late  Armenian  manuscript  in  which  this  section  ia 
headed  Of  the  Presbyter  Ariston.  Perhaps  he  should  be 
identified  with  the  Aristion  who  is  coupled  by  Papias 
with  the  presbyter  John.  An  expanded  form  of  the 
Greek  text  has  been  recently  discovered  in  Egypt. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew. 
From  tiie  time  of  Irenaeus  onwards  the  First  Gospel 
was  attributed  to  the  apostle  Matthew.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  Papias  held  the  same  opinion  if  by  the  Logia  he  under- 
stood the  First  Gospel,  and  it  is  even  conceivable,  though 
not  Hkely,  that  the  same  misconception  was  shared  by  the 
presbyter  John.  In  any  case  we  have  already  seen  that 
the  First  Gospel  can  neither  have  been  written  in  Hebrew 
nor  in  Aramaic  nor  by  the  apostle  Matthew.  It  is  probable 
that  we  must  assign  to  him  the  authorship  of  Q,  all  the 
more  that  there  was  no  substantial  ground  for  the 
attribution  of  the  Logia  to  so  obscure  an  apostle  if  he 


xil]  the  synoptic  GOSPELS  isa 

had  not  actually  written  it.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
author  except  such  as  we  may  infer  from  his  book.  That 
he  was  a  Jewish  Christian  is  clear  both  from  the  general 
characteristics  of  the  work  and  from  the  fact  that  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  peculiar  to  tiie  First  Gospel 
diverge  widely  from  the  Septuagint  showing  the  influence 
of  the  Hebrew  original  and  are  related  to  the  interpreta- 
tions in  the  Targums. 

The  date  is  a  very  difficult  problem.  It  is  intrinsi- 
cally improbable  that  it  belongs  to  the  same  decade  as 
Mark  and  Q,  both  of  which  it  has  employed.  The 
argument  which  haa  weighed  most  on  the  other  side  is 
that  no  indication  is  given  in  the  eschatological  discourse 
that  Jerusalem  had  actually  fallen.  If,  however,  the 
author  reproduced  his  source  here  with  fideUty  we  could 
draw  an  inference  only  with  regard  to  it,  not  to  the  GospeL 
Some  who  think  that  it  was  written  later  than  a.d.  70 
argue  that  it  cannot  have  been  much  later,  otherwise 
the  author  would  have  made  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Second  Coming.  As  against 
this,  however,  it  must  be  urged  that  the  Gospel  seems 
to  reflect  a  somewhat  later  period  of  ecclesiastical  develop- 
ment. Nothing  forbids  the  view  that  this  rather 
cathohcised  Gospel  may  have  been  written  towards  the 
close  of  the  flrst  century.  If  we  are  right  in  supposing 
that  the  first  and  third  evangelists  were  unacquainted  with 
each  other's  works,  we  cannot  allow  any  considerable 
interval  to  he  between  them,  so  that  our  decision  on  the 
date  of  Luke  will  aflect  that  on  the  date  of  Matthew. 
We  have  no  evidence  as  to  the  place  of  writing.  The 
interest  in  Peter  and  the  ecclesiastical  character  of  the 
Gospel  have  suggested  Rome  to  some  scholars,  while 
others  on  account  of  its  markedly  Jewish  Christian 
characteristics  prefer  Palestine  or  Syria.  Whether  the 
author  employed  other  documents  besides  Q  and  Mark 
is  uncertain,  but  is  not  improbable. 


124      INTEODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

TJie  Oospd  of  Luke. 

There  is  no  question  that  the  ancient  Church  from  the 
time  of  Irenaeus  onwards  attributed  the  Third  Gospel  and 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  to  Luke.  Its  existence  at  a  much 
earUer  date  is  guaranteed  by  the  fact  that  Marcion 
included  it  in  a  mutilated  form  in  his  Canon.  This  view 
as  to  the  authorship  maintained  itself  in  the  Church 
down  to  the  critical  period,  and  is  still  held  by  conservative 
scholars,  though  it  has  become  almost  an  axiom  among 
more  advanced  critics  that  the  Lucan  authorship  cannot 
be  maintained.  Against  this  Harnack  has  recently  put 
forward  a  very  weighty  protest,  which  seems  at  present 
to  have  made  httle  impression  on  German  opinion.  The 
objections  to  the  Lucan  authorship  are  based  rather  on  the 
Acts  than  the  Gospel,  but  since  it  is  on  all  hands  admitted 
that  both  of  these  works  were  written  by  the  same  author 
the  denial  of  Acts  to  Luke  carries  with  it  a  similar  verdict 
on  the  Gospel.  It  will  be  more  convenient  therefore  to 
defer  the  question  of  authorship  and  also  that  of  date  till 
we  come  to  the  latter  work. 

We  have  already  seen  that  for  the  account  of  Christ's 
ministry  Luke  drew  mainly  on  Mark  and  Q.  That  he  used 
other  sources  is  probable.  In  his  very  important  preface 
he  tells  us  that  he  had  had  many  predecessors,  and  although 
he  was  apparently  dissatisfied  with  their  work,  it  is  likely 
that  he  used  more  than  two  of  them.  It  is  of  course 
possible  in  the  abstract  that  some  of  the  matter  peculiar 
to  Luke  was  to  be  found  in  Q,  but  if  so  it  is  very  hard  to 
understand  why  Matthew  should  have  omitted  it.  Even 
if  he  was  governed  by  considerations  of  space,  it  would  be 
surprising  that  he  should  have  excluded  some  of  the 
most  beautiful  sections  now  found  in  Luke  in  favour  of 
matter  greatly  inferior  in  interest.  It  is  therefore  most 
likely  that  Luke  derived  his  peculiar  matter  from  one  or 
more  of  these  documents,  though  we  need  not  exclude  the 
possibility  that  he  may  have  been  indebted  for  not  a  little 
lo  oral  communication. 


m  1  THE  ACTS  OF  TEE  APOSTLES  ISS 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  ACTS  OP  THE  APOSTLES 

It  may  be  assumed  that  this  book  comes  from  the  same 
hand  as  the  Third  Gospel.  This  is  guaranteed  by  the 
preface  to  the  two  writings,  each  addressed  to  Theophilus, 
and  by  the  explicit  reference  to  the  Gospel  in  the  preface 
of  the  Acts.  The  style  leads  decisively  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. The  uniform  tradition  from  Irenaeus  onwards 
ascribes  this  work  as  well  as  the  Gospel  to  Luke.  It 
was  apparently  known  to  Justin  Martyr,  and  perhaps 
to  Ignatius  amd  Polycarp.  We  have  also  numerous 
apocryphal  Acts  which  presuppose  the  history  as  told  in 
our  work. 

If  we  turn  to  examine  the  internal  evidence  for  author- 
ship, the  point  of  departure  is  found  in  what  are  known 
as  the  '  we-sections.'  Certain  parts  of  the  book  are 
written  in  the  fibrst  person  plural.  This  means  on  the  most 
obvious  hypothesis  that  the  writer  of  the  book  was  a 
companion  of  Paul  on  some  of  his  journeys.  This  is  the 
opinion  ordinarily  accepted.  But  in  view  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  the  phenomena  present,  many  critics  beheve 
that  the  *  we-sections  '  were  written  by  a  companion  of  the 
apostle,  but  that  the  book  itself  was  composed  by  a  later 
writer  who  incorporated  these  sections  with  or  without 
alteration.  This  hypothesis  has  assumed  several  forms, 
according  as  the  *  we-sections '  are  attributed  now  to  one, 
now  to  another  writer.  Timothy,  Silas  and  Titus  have 
been  suggested,  but  the  first  two  seem  to  be  excluded  by 


IM      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      |.ck. 

ihe  language  of  the  book  itself  (xx.  6,  6,  xvi.  16  ff.),  and 
there  is  no  object  in  accepting  Titus  or  any  support  for 
this  view.  The  only  form  of  the  hypothesis  which 
deserves  consideration  is  that  which  attributes  these 
sections  to  Luke  and  regards  them  as  incorporated  by  a 
later  writer.  This  has  the  support  of  tradition  so  far  as 
it  assigns  a  share  of  the  work  to  Luke.  And  it  has  an 
analogy  in  the  case  of  the  First  Gospel. 

The  real  question,  however,  is  whether  these  sectiona 
can  be  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  book.  Li  the 
first  place  it  would  be  an  extraordinary  proceeding  for 
any  writer,  and  especially  for  a  writer  of  such  literary 
skill,  to  have  incorporated  a  document,  or  extracts  from 
a  document,  without  even  changing  the  first  person 
plural  into  a  third  person  or  naming  the  writer.  For 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  as  the  work  reads  now,  the 
author  gives  the  distinct  impression  that  he  himself 
was  present  at  those  incidents  related  in  these  sections. 
It  seems  highly  improbable  on  the  face  of  it  that  he 
should  have  allowed  that  impression  to  remain,  if  really 
it  was  not  he  but  some  one  else  whose  name  he  sup- 
presses while  he  borrows  his  words.  But  apart  from  this 
difficulty  which  meets  us  at  the  outset,  there  are  others. 
The  style  of  these  sections  is  not  to  be  distinguished  from 
that  of  the  rest  of  the  book.  This  has  been  convincingly 
demonstrated  by  several  scholars,  among  whom  Hawkins 
and  Hamack  may  be  singled  out  for  special  mention. 
The  suggestion  made  by  some  scholars  that  the  identity 
of  style  is  to  be  explained  by  the  author's  revision  of  the 
sections  is  difficult  to  harmonise  with  the  fact  that  the 
first  person  plural  is  left  untouched.  Not  only  so,  but 
there  are  cross-references  from  them  to  other  parts  of  the 
book.  Thus  in  xxi.  8  we  have  a  reference  to  the  fact  that 
Philip  was  one  of  the  seven,  and  who  the  seven  were  has 
been  explained  in  ch.  vi.,  where  it  is  also  mentioned  that 
Philip  was  one  of  them.    How  he  came  to  be  in  Caesarea 


XIII.J  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  117 

has  been  told  in  viii.  40.  It  seems  then  far  the  most 
probable  hypothesis  that  the  work  is  a  unity,  and  if  so  due 
to  a  companion  of  Paul,  whom  we  need  have  no  hesitation 
in  believing  to  be  Luke.  This  is  corroborated  by  the  fact 
that  both  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  seem  to  have  been 
composed  by  a  physician  such  as  we  know  Luke  to  have 
been  (Col.  iv.  14).  The  fullest  collection  of  evidence  was 
made  by  Hobart  in  his  Medical  Langtioge  of  St.  Luke. 
Even  when  every  reasonable  deduction  has  been  made 
the  evidence  is  sufficiently  cogent  to  render  this  con- 
clusion highly  probable,  and  it  has  recently  secured  the 
adhesion  of  Hamack. 

Since  Acts  is  an  historical  book,  it  is  natural  that  our 
critical  conclusions  should  be  afEected  to  a  certain  extent 
by  the  author's  treatment  of  history.  A  discussion  of  his 
character  as  a  historian  Ues  outside  our  scope,  but  some- 
thing must  be  said  on  the  history  so  far  as  it  affects  the 
criticism.  The  author  is  distinguished  by  great  accuracy 
in  his  use  of  poUtical  terms.  In  view  of  the  frequent  inter- 
change of  provinces  between  Emperor  and  Senate,  it  was 
not  easy  for  a  later  writer  to  be  strictly  accurate,  since 
difiFerent  terms  were  employed  for  the  two  types.  A 
critic  would  expect  the  '  we-sections  *  to  be  accurate. 
Phihppi  was  a  Roman  colony,  the  local  magistrates  were 
duumvirs,  but  dub  themselves  praetors,  and  they  have 
their  Uctors.  But  the  same  accuracy  characterises  the 
other  parte  of  the  work.  It  was  thought  even  by  some 
apologists  that  Luke  had  used  terms  incorrectly  when  he 
called  the  governor  of  Cyprus  a  proconsul.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  when  the  provinces  were  originally  divided  it  fell 
to  the  Emperor's  share,  but  subsequently  he  gave  it  to  the 
Senate,  so  that  Luke  is  strictly  right  in  speaking  of  the 
governor  as  proconsul.  Another  case  is  that  of  Thessa- 
lonica.  Here  the  magistrates  are  spoken  of  as  politarchs. 
The  word  does  not  occur  in  any  Greek  Uterature  known 
to  us,  but  inscriptions  have  been  found  at  Thessalonica 


128      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oH. 

dbowing  that  this  city  had  several  politarchs.  Achaia  is 
another  good  example  owing  to  the  frequent  change  of 
government.  From  a.d.  16-44  it  had  been  in  the  hands 
of  the  Emperor.  In  the  latter  year  it  was  handed  over  to 
the  Senate,  to  which  it  had  formerly  belonged  and  was 
retained  by  it  till  67.  Then  it  ceased  to  be  a  Roman 
province  and  became  independent,  but  subsequently 
Vespasian  made  it  a  province  again.  In  spite  of  the 
numerous  changes  the  Acts  correctly  represents  Gallic 
as  a  proconsul,  and  its  description  of  him  agrees  admirably 
with  information  from  other  sources.  None  of  these 
cases  is  taken  from  the  '  we-sections,*  so  that  even  in  the 
parts  where  the  writer  is  not  credited  with  having  the 
accurate  knowledge  displayed  by  the  author  of  those 
sections,  it  is  plain  that  on  such  sUppery  ground  as  this 
he  meets  with  no  mishap.  The  knowledge  of  locahties  is 
also  accurate  and  betrays  first-hand  knowledge,  as  does 
the  description  of  the  character  of  the  people  in  particular 
places.  But  while  these  have  considerable  weight,  and 
must  be  set  down  to  the  writer's  credit,  there  is  not  the 
same  evidential  value  as  in  the  instances  just  given,  since 
such  knowledge  might  be  obtained  by  travel  a  considerable 
time  afterwards.  But  not  only  does  the  account  show 
first-hand  knowledge  of  the  localities,  it  is  also  faithful  to 
the  state  of  things  that  obtained  at  the  time,  but  became 
obsolete  in  the  second  century. 

The  writer  shows  a  good  understanding  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  early  Church.  He  knows  the  composition  of 
the  community  at  Jerusalem,  and  points  out  quite 
naturally  how  the  first  sign  of  friction  within  it  was  due 
to  difficulties  between  the  Palestinian  Jews  and  the 
Hellenists.  He  knows  of  the  communistic  basis  of  the 
Church,  though  that  would  presumably  have  passed  away 
by  his  time  even  m  the  Jewish  Christian  Churches,  while 
in  the  Pauline  it  probably  never  existed.  He  gives  a 
perfectly  natural  account  of  the  almost  incidental  way  in 


xiii.J  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  1» 

which  the  Gospel  was  first  preached  to  the  Gentiles.  He 
is  also  aware  of  the  external  relations  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church.  Thus  he  has  accurately  caught  the  attitude  of 
the  Jewish  parties  towards  it.  In  the  Grospels  the 
Pharisees  are  for  the  most  part  the  persistent  enemies 
of  Jesus,  though  the  Sadducees  became  more  prominent 
towards  the  end.  In  the  Acts,  however,  the  Pharisees  sink 
into  comparative  insignificance,  while  the  Sadducees  are 
the  chief  persecutors  of  the  Church.  This  is  due  partly 
to  the  fact  that  the  Sadducees  had  been  foremost  in  putting 
Jesus  to  death,  but  partly  also  to  their  dislike  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Resurrection,  which  was  a  prominent 
article  of  Christian  preaching,  since  it  all  rested  on  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  likely  that  if  the  writer  had 
been  relying  on  his  inventive  powers  rather  than  actual 
historical  information,  he  would  have  followed  the  Gospel 
and  given  the  prominent  place  to  the  Pharisees  as  the 
persecutors  of  the  Christians. 

It  has  also  been  noticed  that  the  speeches  of  Peter  and 
Paul  present  marked  parallels  with  the  Epistles  of  these 
apostles  respectively.  This  is  an  argument  of  a  kind  that 
requires  to  be  employed  with  caution,  but  so  far  as  it 
goes,  it  is  a  confirmation  of  the  general  accuracy  of  the 
book.  With  reference  to  the  speeches  generally,  it  may 
be  said  that  in  their  main  outlines  they  seem  eminently 
appropriate  to  the  situation  in  which  they  are  placed. 
An  example  of  this  is  the  speech  of  Stephen.  Lightfoot 
thinks  that  the  speech  as  we  have  it  is  only  a  preamble  to 
the  real  reply  which  Stephen  had  no  chance  of  giving 
owing  to  his  attack  on  his  accusers  in  the  last  verses. 
But  really  it  seems  to  be  a  most  skilful  reply,  conducted 
except  for  these  three  verses,  with  consummate  tact. 
While  recounting  the  national  history  of  which  the  Jews 
were  proud,  he  yet  tells  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate 
the  independence  of  true  religion  on  the  local  sanctuary 
or  the  Holy  Land  which  had  been  exemplified  frequently 

I 


130      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [cH. 

in  that  history,  and  to  hint  that  the  rejection  of  Jesus 
by  the  Jews  was  all  of  a  piece  with  the  conduct  of  their 
fathers.  He  thus  brings  his  own  position  into  line 
with  much  in  the  Old  Testament  that  could  not  be 
objected  to  by  the  Jews  themselves.  It  is  also  a  mark  of 
authenticity  that  there  is  no  reference  in  Stephen's  speech 
to  the  aboHtion  of  the  Law.  This  could  scarcely  have 
been  kept  out  if  the  narrator  had  invented  the  speech. 
In  the  speeches  of  Paul  too  it  is  noticeable  that  when 
addressing  non-Christian  audiences  he  starts  from  what 
he  has  in  common  with  those  whom  he  is  addressing. 
Thus  in  his  speech  to  the  people  of  Lycaonia  he  takes  his 
stand  on  the  truths  of  natural  religion  as  they  appear 
to  the  untrained  intelligence.  In  his  speech  at  Athens 
his  treatment  is  philosophical,  and  he  starts  from  the 
truth  contained  in  pantheism  and  the  kinship  of  men 
with  God.  Similarly  he  treats  the  Jews  at  Antioch.  In 
each  case  the  speech  is  relevant  to  the  audience. 

Another  argument  has  been  worked  out  by  Paley  in  his 
Horae  PauUnae.  He  has  shown  in  numerous  cases  that 
the  allusions  in  Paul's  Epistles  fit  perfectly  into  the 
narrative  of  the  Acts.  This  is  important  because  the 
author  does  not  seem  to  have  used  the  Epistles  in  con- 
structing his  story,  for  it  would  be  difl&cult  to  explain  if 
he  had  done  so  why  he  should  not  have  availed  himself 
of  much  of  the  material  to  be  found  there.  And  even  if 
he  had  used  the  Epistles,  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  the 
minute  coincidences,  which  are  just  those  that  would  be 
least  obvious  and  most  difficult  to  invent,  should  be  just 
the  coincidences  that  we  find. 

There  are,  however,  certain  difficulties  raised  as  to 
matters  of  fact.  The  most  serious  is  perhaps  the  reference 
to  Theudas  in  the  speech  of  Gamaliel.  We  know  from 
Josephus  of  a  Theudas  who  raised  an  insurrection  in  the 
proconsulship  of  Fadus.  This  cannot  have  been  earlier 
tiian  4.D.  44,  the  date  when  Fadus  became  procurator. 


xin.]  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  131 

Tet  not  only  is  Gamaliel's  speech  earlier  than  this  date^ 
but  he  places  the  iiisurrection  before  the  time  of  Judas 
the  Galilaean.  This  latter  is  dated  in  the  time  of  the 
taxing  soon  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  Two  altematiyes 
are  possible.  Either  the  author  has  made  a  mistake  or  the 
[Theudas  mentioned  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  Theudas 
mentioned  by  Josephus.  The  name  is  not  uncommon, 
and  insurrections  of  this  kind  were  numerous. 

One  of  the  most  serious  difficulties  is  that  occasioned 
by  the  story  of  the  apostolic  council  in  Acts  xv.  K  the 
identification  of  this  visit  to  Jerusalem  with  that  recorded 
in  Gal.  ii.  be  accepted  we  have  apparently  a  grave  dis- 
crepancy. Paul  asserts  that  the  Jerusalem  apostles  im- 
parted nothing  to  him,  recognised  the  validity  of  his  call  and 
divided  the  sphere  of  service,  making  only  the  request  that 
he  should  remember  the  poor.  According  to  Acts  they 
drew  np  a  letter  in  which  they  made  four  stipulations, 
tiiat  the  Gentile  Christians  should  '  abstain  from  things 
sacrificed  to  idols,  and  from  blood,  and  from  things 
strangled,  and  from  fornication.*  It  is  argued  that  such 
an  agreement  cannot  have  been  accepted  by  Paul,  and 
therefore  that  his  companion  Luke  cannot  be  responsible 
for  this  account.  The  question  as  to  the  historicity  of  the 
decrees  does  not  concern  us,  unless  we  are  prepared  to 
draw  the  inference  that  inaccuracy  on  such  a  matter  would 
be  impossible  to  a  companion  of  Paul  writing  a  great  many 
years  later.  It  is  now,  however,  more  and  more  admitted 
that  the  underlying  assumption  is  unjustified.  It  is  not 
intended  of  course  that  there  is  any  necessary  discrepancy 
between  Acts  and  Paul  on  this  point,  but  only  t^t  it 
there  were  it  would  not  necessarily  involve  the  non- 
£ucan  authorship.  The  difficulty  would  largely  disappear 
if  Hamack  were  right  in  adopting  the  contention  of  the 
younger  Resch,  that  we  should  accept  the  Western  text 
of  the  decrees  though  without  the  golden  rule.  In  that 
ease  we  have  not  food  prohibitions  in  the  decrees  but 


132      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca. 

'  the  summary  of  Jewish  ethical  catechetics,'  abstinence 
from  idolatry,  murder  and  fornication.  This  solution  of 
the  difficulty  has  been  rejected  by  Schiirer  and  by  Sanday 
i^The  Apostolic  Decree  in  the  volume  of  Essays  in  honour 
of  Zahn).  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it  will  secure  any 
wide  acceptance.  What  has  been  said  on  this  historical 
difficulty  applies  also  to  others.  The  primary  element  in 
determining  authorship  is  the  proof  that  the  author  of  the 
'  we-sections '  was  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and 
the  Acts  as  a  whole.  The  objections  taken  to  the  narrative 
must  accommodate  themselves  to  this  conclusion  rather 
than  vice  versa.  The  question  how  far  other  sources  have 
been  used  by  the  writer  cannot  be  discussed  here.  A 
whole  series  of  attempts  has  been  made  to  detect  sources ; 
the  most  recent  discussion  is  to  be  found  in  Hamack's 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

The  question  of  the  date  is  one  of  great  difficulty.  Some 
consider  that  the  work  was  written  soon  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  narrative,  that  is  two  years  after  Paul's 
arrival  in  Rome.  This  view  is  suggested  by  the  close  of 
the  Acts  at  this  point.  It  is  argued  that  if  Luke  had 
known  more  he  would  have  told  more,  and  not  simply 
said  that  Paul  dwelt  for  two  years  in  his  own  hired  house. 
This  argument  has  been  met  in  various  ways.  Some  have 
supposed  that  Luke  intended  to  write  a  third  book  in 
which  he  would  have  carried  on  the  history  from  the 
point  where  he  leaves  it  at  the  close  of  the  Acts,  and 
rounded  it  ofiE  by  a  peroration  to  match  the  elaborate 
preface  to  the  Third  Gospel  and  Acts.  For  this  we  have 
no  evidence,  certainly  not  in  the  use  of  *  first '  instead  of 
'  former '  in  Acts  i.  1,  nor  have  we  any  for  the  view  that 
this  book  was  left  by  him  in  an  unfinished  state.  It  has 
already  been  pointed  out  in  the  discussion  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  work  closes  very 
skilfully.  Other  arguments  are  that  Acts  xs.  25,  cf.  38, 
expresses  the  conviction  that  Paul  would  never  see  th« 


Jin.]  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  133 

Ephesian  elders  again,  whereas  from  2  Timothy  it  appears 
that  he  did  so.  This,  however,  rests  on  the  assumption  that 
Paul  was  released  from  the  Roman  captivity  which  we 
have  already  seen  reason  to  set  aside.  Moreover,  there  is 
no  reference  either  in  the  Acts  or  in  the  Gospels  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  terrible  misfortunes 
which  fell  upon  the  Jews.  But  this  argument  from 
nlence  is  too  weak  to  bear  any  weight.  The  fact  was 
notorious.  The  failure  to  use  the  Pauline  Epistles  is 
much  easier  to  account  for  in  Paul's  lifetime  than  at  a 
later  period.  But  this  impUes  rather  too  modem  a  demand 
on  the  historian. 

There  are  very  weighty  arguments  in  favour  of  a  later 
date.  The  preface  to  the  Gospel  definitely  states  that  the 
author  had  been  preceded  in  his  enterprise  by  many.  It 
is  in  the  abstract  quite  possible  that  these  numerous 
Grospel  narratives  may  have  been  in  existence  by  a.d.  60. 
It  is  nevertheless  much  more  likely  that  the  number 
points  to  a  considerably  later  date.  We  have  seen  reason 
to  beUeve  that  Luke  based  his  Gospel  on  Mark  and  Q. 
So  far  as  our  evidence  for  date  goes,  it  is  unhkely  that 
either  of  these  was  earher  than  the  sixties.  Mark, 
it  would  seem,  belongs  at  the  earUest  to  the  late  sixties. 
If  so  we  must  place  the  Third  Gospel  in  the  seventies  at 
the  earhest.  The  later  we  go  the  more  easily  we  can 
account  for  some  of  the  phenomena.  The  version  of  the 
Judaistic  controversy  suggests  that  it  originated  in  a  period 
when  the  question  had  become  one  of  rather  remote 
historical  interest,  and  the  conception  of  the  apostolic 
age  was  moving  towards  the  catholicised  picture  of  the 
second  century.  The  apologetic  character  of  both  Grospel 
and  Acts  in  relation  at  once  to  Judaism  and  the  Roman 
Empire  is  similar  to  what  we  find  in  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
and  also  suggests  a  date  not  earher  than  the  reign  of 
Domitian. 

If  the  view  that  Luke  used  Josephus  could  be  sub* 


134      INTRODUCnON  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ott 

stantiated,  we  should  be  definitely  committed  to  a  date 
later  than  93-94  when  his  Antiquities  was  written. 
Dependence  on  Josephus  has  been  asserted  by  Holtzmann, 
Schmiedelj  Wendt,  Burkitt  and  other  scholars,  but 
especially  by  Krenkel,  who  in  his  work  Josephus  and 
Lucas  (1894)  sought  to  prove  that  Luke  knew  the  whole 
of  Josephus'  writings  and  was  greatly  influenced  by  them. 
His  demonstration  of  this,  however,  is  not  satisfactory. 
That  Luke  was  in  any  way  dependent  on  Josephus  is 
denied  by  very  many  scholars,  including  Schiirer,  Harnack, 
and  Wellhausen.  The  difficulty  about  Theudas  has  been 
already  mentioned.  According  to  Acts,  Theudas  is  first 
mentioned  and  then  Judas  of  Galilee.  Both  the  anachron- 
ism and  the  reversal  of  the  historical  order  would  be 
explained  if  we  assumed  that  Luke  was  acquainted  with 
the  Antiquities  (Book  xx.  chap.  5),  inasmuch  as  after 
the  account  of  Theudas  we  read  in  the  next  paragraph 
that  '  the  sons  of  Judas  of  Galilee  were  now  slain,  I  mean 
of  that  Judas  who  caused  the  people  to  revolt  when 
Quirinius  came  to  take  an  account  of  the  estates  of  the 
Jews  as  we  have  showed  in  a  former  book.'  It  must, 
however,  be  confessed  that  not  only  would  the  author 
have  read  Josephus  very  carelessly,  but  that  it  would  have 
been  far  more  easy  to  account  for  if  Josephus'  reference 
to  Judas  had  not  been  so  very  incidental.  The  other 
serious  argument  for  acquaintance  with  Josephus  is  the 
reference  to  Lysanias,  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  in  Luke  iii.  1. 
Lysanias  had  been  put  to  death  in  B.C.  36,  so  that  we  should 
have  to  assume  that  it  is  a  later  Lysanias  who  is  mentioned 
by  Luke.  It  is  a  httle  surprising  that  Luke  should  have 
introduced  Abilene  into  his  synchronism,  and  the 
suggestion  is  that  this  is  due  to  his  having  read  that 
Claudius  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign  '  bestowed  upon 
Agrippa  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip  and  Batanaea,  and  added 
thereto  Trachonitis  and  Abila,  which  last  had  been  the 
tetrarchy  of  Lysanias'   [Antiquities,  Book   ii.  chap.   7). 


*in.J  THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES  lU 

Others  who  agree  that  the  mention  of  Lysanias  is  an 
inaccuracy,  account  for  it  by  the  fact  that  his  kingdom 
continued  after  his  death  to  bear  his  name,  and  that  Luke 
did  not  know  Josephus.  The  view  that  Luke  may  have 
been  acquainted  with  Josephus*  Uterary  sources  rather 
than  with  Josephus  himself  can  hardly  be  considered 
a  probable  alternative  since  the  chronological  inaccuracies 
charged  against  him  are  due  to  incidental  combinations 
in  Josephus,  which  the  latter  would  have  been  very  unlikely 
to  have  derived  from  his  source.  The  present  writer  is 
accordingly  inclined  to  beheve  that  Luke  had  a  cursory 
acquaintance  with  this  section  of  the  Antiquities^  and 
therefore  that  the  Gospel  was  probably  not  earher  than  96, 
while  Acts  appears  to  have  been  written  a  few  years  later. 
It  is  true  that  this  would  make  Luke  rather  an  old  man 
at  the  time,  but  if  we  assume  that  he  was  quite  young 
when  he  began  to  accompany  Paul,  he  would  not  be  in- 
credibly old.  At  the  same  time  an  early  date,  say  from 
75-80,  is  not  at  all  impossible  in  view  of  the  somewhat 
precarious  inference  from  the  coincidenoeB  with  Josephus. 


136      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  KEW  TESTAMENT      [ok. 


CHAPTER  XIT 

THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS 

Wb  have  five  writings  in  the  New  Testament  which  are 
attributed  to  John,  namely  the  Fourth  Gospel,  three 
Epistles,  and  the  Apocalypse.  The  critical  opinion  of  the 
present  time  is  very  much  divided  as  to  this  hterature. 
Some  still  ascribe  all  five  of  these  works  to  John  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  others  are  willing  to  credit  him  with  the  Gospel 
and  the  Epistles  but  deny  to  him  the  Apocalypse,  while 
others  accept  his  authorship  of  the  Apocalypse  but  deny 
the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  other  writings.  Others 
again  attribute  some  or  all  of  these  writings  to  John,  but 
consider  that  he  is  not  to  be  identified  with  the  apostle  of 
that  name.  Some  admit  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
First  Epistle  are  by  one  author,  attributing  the  Second 
and  Third  Epistles  to  a  different  writer,  but  some  believe 
that  neither  the  Epistles  nor  the  Apocalypse  were  written 
by  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Questions  are  also 
raised  as  to  the  unity  both  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  of  the 
Apocalypse.  In  view  of  these  and  other  problems  it  will 
be  most  convenient  to  begin  by  discussing  some  pre- 
liminary questions  before  we  pass  on  to  those  that  are  more 
central. 

The  first  is  concerned  with  the  identity  of  John  of  Asia 
known  to  us  from  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Polycrates  and  others.  It  has  been  usual  to  identify  this 
John  with  the  apostle.  The  Tiibingen  school  naturally 
held  firmly  to  tradition  on  this  point,  in  face  of  the  attaoki 


xiT.]  THE  JOHANNINE  WEITENGS  187 

of  Butzelberger,  Keim  and  Scholten,  sinoe  it  was  an  axiom 
for  it  that  the  apostle  John  was  tiie  author  of  the 
Apocalypse,  with  its  supposed  hitter  attack  on  Paul,  and 
the  Apocalypse  can  have  been  written  only  by  one  who 
was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  Seven  Churches  of 
Asia.  Probably  scarcely  any  one  now  believes  that  the 
Apocalypse  contains  an  attack  on  Paul,  or  has  any  critical 
axe  to  grind  in  claiming  the  Apocalypse  for  the  apostle. 
Accordingly  the  critical  case  gains  nothing  from  the 
tradition  of  the  Asian  residence,  while  this  tradition  is 
really  awkward  for  it  when  it  comes  to  deal  with  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  Several  scholars,  however,  consider  that 
he  was  not  the  apostle  but  the  presbyter  John.  Of  the 
latter  we  hear  simply  from  Papias  who  enumerates,  in  a 
list  of  those  about  whose  discourses  he  was  in  the  habit 
of  making  inquiries,  two  Johns.  The  former  of  these 
was  clearly  the  apostle,  the  latter  is  called  the  presbyter 
John.  The  passage  runs  as  follows  :  *  And  again  on  any 
occasion  when  a  person  came  (in  my  way)  who  had  been  a 
follower  of  the  Elders,  I  would  enquire  about  the  dis- 
courses of  the  Elders — What  was  said  by  Andrew  or  by 
Peter,  or  by  Philip,  or  by  Thomas  or  James,  or  by  John 
or  Matthew  or  any  other  of  the  Lord's  disciples,  and  what 
Aristion  and  the  Elder  John,  the  disciples  of  the  Lord 
say.'  (Quoted  from  the  translation  in  Lightfoot's  Apostolic 
Fathers.)  It  is  clear  that  the  term  '  disciples  of  the  Lord ' 
is  used  in  two  different  senses,  in  the  former  case  in  the 
narrow  sense  of  apostle,  in  the  latter  case  in  a  wider  sense. 
It  seems  further  to  be  clear  that  the  John  mentioned 
before  Matthew  is  to  be  distinguished  as  the  apostle  from 
the  presbyter  John  who  is  coupled  with  Aristion.  And  it 
may  also  be  inferred  that  either  at  the  time  when  Papias 
was  writing,  or  more  probably  when  he  was  collecting 
lus  material,  John  the  apostle  was  dead,  while  John  tiie 
presbyter  was  alive,  unless  with  Drummond  we  explain 
the  present  tense  '  say  *  to  mean  *  say  in  their  books.' 


138      INTRODUOTiON  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      (cb. 

The  possibility  must  therefore  be  admitted  that  references 
to  John  as  resident  in  Asia  may  in  some  instances  have 
been  intended  to  relate  to  the  presbyter  rather  than  the 
apostle. 

The  most  important  of  these  occurs  in  a  letter  written 
by  Irenaeus  to  Florinus.  He  as  well  as  Irenaeus  had  in 
his  earUer  days  been  a  hearer  of  Polycarp,  but  had  been 
later  attracted  by  Valentinianism.  In  this  letter  Irenaeus 
gives  a  vivid  account  of  Polycarp's  teaching.  In  it  he 
recalls  '  how  he  would  describe  his  intercourse  with  John 
and  with  the  rest  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he  would 
relate  their  words.'  He  proceeds :  '  And  whatsoever 
things  he  had  heard  from  them  about  the  Lord,  and  about 
His  miracles,  and  about  His  teaching,  Polycarp,  as  having 
received  them  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  hfe  of  the  Word, 
would  relate  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.' 
It  is  clear  from  this  that  Polycarp  was  in  the  habit  of 
relating  in  very  considerable  detail  the  discourses  he  heard 
from  John  and  others  who  had  seen  and  heard  Jesus,  and 
of  recounting  their  narratives  about  His  life,  teaching  and 
work.  It  is  therefore  highly  improbable  that  Irenaeus  can 
have  made  any  mistake  as  to  the  identity  of  the  John, 
whose  teaching  Polycarp  used  to  relate.  The  frequency 
of  his  references  to  him  and  the  detail  into  which  he  used 
to  go,  seem  to  exclude  the  possibihty  of  such  misunder- 
standing. It  must  have  been  clear  in  several  instances, 
whether  it  was  John  the  apostle  or  some  other  John  of 
whom  Polycarp  was  speaking. 

It  is  urged  on  the  other  hand  that  Irenaeus  was  very 
young  at  the  time,  and  that  he  was  probably  merely  a 
hearer  of  Polycarp  and  not  one  of  his  familiar  disciples. 
It  is,  however,  very  dubious  whether  he  was  so  young 
as  these  scholars  attempt  to  make  out,  and  he  himself 
lays  special  stress  on  his  vivid  recollections  of  that 
period.  Moreover,  the  accuracy  of  his  statement  ia 
guaranteed  by  the  circumstances.     However  unsorupu- 


HV.]  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS  139 

lously  he  might  overstate  his  points  against  those  who 
were  not  in  a  position  to  check  his  assertions,  he  could 
not  very  well  have  afforded  to  do  so  when  he  was 
appealing  to  recollections  shared  by  the  very  man  whose 
views  he  was  engaged  in  refuting.  It  is  alleged  that 
Irenaeus  made  a  similar  mistake  about  Papias.  He 
says :  *  These  things  Papias,  who  was  a  hearer  of  John 
and  a  companion  of  Polycarp,  an  ancient  worthy,  witnesses 
in  writing  in  the  fourth  of  his  books.  For  there  are  five 
books  composed  by  him.'  Eusebius,  after  quoting  this 
statement,  passes  a  criticism  on  it  to  the  effect  that  Papiaa 
does  not  declare  himself  in  his  preface  to  have  been  a 
hearer  of  the  apostles,  but  shows  that  he  had  received  his 
information  from  their  friends.  He  then  gives  an  extract 
from  the  preface  to  substantiate  his  criticism.  It  is 
generally  agreed  that  Eusebius  is  right,  for  he  read  his 
authorities  with  considerable  care,  and  that  Irenaeus  was 
incorrect  in  his  assertion  that  Papias  was  a  hearer  of  John. 
But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  Irenaeus  is  likely  to 
have  made  a  similar  mistake  about  Polycarp.  We  have 
no  evidence  that  he  had  ever  seen  Papias,  but  we  know 
that  he  had  seen  and  heard  Polycarp  frequently,  and  had 
often  hstened  to  his  reminiscences  of  John.  Besides,  his 
statement  about  Papias  is  a  mere  passing  allusion,  while 
his  account  of  Polycarp's  relations  with  John  is  vital  to 
his  argument.  Moreover,  we  know  that  Irenaeus  was 
immensely  impressed  by  the  idea  of  continuity  with  the 
apostohc  teaching.  He  believed  himself  to  stand  in  re- 
^Ation  to  the  apostle  John  through  Polycarp.  That  he 
should  have  made  a  mistake  at  this  point  is  not  easy  to 
believe. 

But  Irenaeus  does  not  stand  alone.  Polycrates,  the 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  in  a  letter  to  Victor  bishop  of  Rome 
about  the  Paschal  controversy  mentions  among  the  great 
lights  that  have  fallen  asleep  in  Asia,  '  John  who  was 
both  a  witness  [or  confessor]  and  a  teacher,  and  who  leaned 


140     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

upon  the  bosom  of  the  Lord.'  This  makes  it  probable 
that  the  apostle  is  intended.  He  adds,  'He  fell  susleep 
at  Ephesus.*  The  date  of  this  letter  is  about  190  a.d. 
Since  the  writer  speaks  of  himself  in  it  as  '  having  sixty- 
five  years  in  the  Lord '  the  date  of  his  birth,  if  he  was  bom  a 
Christian,  will  be  about  125.  Of  course  we  cannot  assume, 
as  Hamack  observes,  that  he  was  bom  in  Ephesus,  or 
spent  his  early  days  there.  Still  this  is  not  unlikely,  and 
in  any  case  ttie  fact  that  he  himself  lived  in  Ephesus  as 
head  of  the  Christian  Church  there,  lends  great  weight  to 
his  identification  of  the  John  who  died  there  with  the 
beloved  disciple.  At  the  same  time  there  is  force  in  the 
objection  that  he  confused  Phihp  the  deacon  with  PhiHp 
the  apostle.  It  is  not  certain  that  he  did  so,  but  it  is  at 
least  sufficiently  probable  to  lend  plausibility  to  the 
suggestion  that  he  similarly  confused  John  the  presbyter 
with  John  the  apostle.  This  evidence  of  course  does  not 
attest  the  residence  of  the  apostle  in  Ephesus  unless  we 
can  identify  the  apostle  with  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved.  Clement  of  Alexandria  relates  the  story  of  the 
Apostle  John  and  the  Robber,  and  says  that  the  incident 
happened  while  John  lived  at  Ephesus. 

Justin's  evidence  is,  however,  of  more  weight.  He 
ascribes  the  Revelation  to  the  apostle  John.  It  is  clear 
from  the  early  chapters  of  the  Revelation  that  it  was 
written  by  some  one  closely  connected  with  the  Seven 
Churches  of  Asia.  Accordingly  Justin,  whether  he  is  a 
witoiess  to  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel  or  not, 
is  at  least  a  witness  for  the  residence  of  the  apostle  John 
in  or  near  Ephesus.  This  is  significant  when  we  remember 
that  Justin  was  himself  for  a  time  in  Ephesus.  Nearly 
fifty  years,  then,  before  Polycrates  wrote  to  Victor,  the 
fact  that  the  apostle  John  hved  in  Asia  is  indirectly 
attested  by  a  writer  who  had  himself  been  in  Ephesus. 

If,  further,  it  be  allowed,  as  it  generally  is,  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  originated  in  or  near  Ephesus,  then  this 


MT.l  THE  JOHANNINK  WBITINGS  14J 

may  also  be  urged  in  corroboration  of  the  belief  that  the 
beloved  disciple  lived  there.  If  the  work  was  written  by 
him,  this  would  follow  as  a  matter  of  course.  But  if  not, 
the  prominence  assigned  to  him  in  the  narrative  is  most 
easily  explained  if  it  was  the  work  of  disciples  of  his  who 
were  concerned  to  vindicate  their  master's  true  position. 
And  if  such  disciples  wrote  in  Ephesus  it  is  most  likely 
that  there  John  had  taught  them.  We  can  the  better 
understand  why  it  was  felt  necessary  to  correct  the  im- 
pression that  Jesus  had  promised  the  beloved  disciple  that 
he  should  not  die,  if  he  had  lived  or  was  at  the  time  living 
in  the  community  from  which  the  Gospel  proceeded.  If 
then  the  beloved  disciple  is  to  be  identified  with  the 
apostle  John,  it  seems  probable  that  the  interest  in  him 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  due  to  the  apostle's  connexion 
with  Ephesus.  Unless  very  forcible  reasons  can  be 
alleged  on  the  other  side,  it  must  be  admitted  that  John's 
residence  in  Asia  is  a  well-attested  fact. 

The  question  accordingly  arises  if  the  arguments  against 
it  are  sufficiently  cogent  to  neutralise  the  reasons  in  its 
favour.  In  the  first  place,  while  Papias  mentions  two 
Johns,  he  says  nothing  as  to  their  residence,  and  other 
early  writers  betray  no  knowledge  that  two  famous  Johns 
lived  in  Asia.  They  seem  to  know  of  one  only.  Accord- 
ingly it  is  inferred  that  there  was  only  one  highly  dis- 
tinguished John  in  Asia,  viz.  the  presbyter,  and  that  by 
a  natural  confusion  he  was  identified  with  the  apostle. 
In  answer  to  this  it  may  be  said  that  we  cannot  assume 
that  the  presbyter  John  did  live  in  Asia.  If  he  did  not, 
then  the  identify  of  Polycarp's  John  with  the  apostle 
would  be  very  probable.  But  if  the  presbyter  did  Uve 
in  Asia,  nothing  was  more  likely  than  that  he  should 
speedily  be  forgotten,  eclipsed  by  the  great  apostle. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  the  argument  from 
Ihe  silence  of  certain  writers  is  reaUy  strong.  We  should 
have  expected  reference  to  the  apostle's  reeideiice  in  Asia 


142      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAIVIENT      [ca 

in  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  Polycarp.  The  latter, 
however,  was  writing  to  the  Philippians,  and  it  was  natural 
for  him  to  refer  to  Paul,  who  had  founded  the  Church  and 
written  at  least  one  letter  to  it,  while  there  was  no  need 
for  him  to  mention  John,  The  silence  of  Ignatius  is  more 
difficult  to  explain,  especially  in  his  letter  to  the  Church 
at  Ephesus,  in  which  he  refers  to  Paul  but  not  to  John, 
who  if  he  had  lived  there,  could  have  died  only  a  short 
time  before.  The  mention  of  Paul  seems  to  be  due  partly 
to  his  relation  to  the  Ephesian  Church  in  its  earliest  period, 
partly  to  Paul's  connexion  with  Antioch,  where  Ignatius 
was  bishop,  and  especially  to  the  fact  that  he  was  going 
to  Rome  to  be  martyred  and  thus,  as  he  says,  following  in 
Paul's  footsteps.  The  difficulty  is  a  real  one,  but  a  negative 
argument,  which  might  with  fuller  knowledge  be  readily 
rebutted,  cannot  count  for  much  against  the  mass  of 
positive  evidence  for  John's  residence  in  Asia.^  Ignatius 
refers  to  the  connexion  of  the  Church  in  Ephesus  with 
apostles,  and  the  plural  may  imply  Paul  and  John. 

It  would  nevertheless  be  difficult  to  maintain  the 
correctness  of  the  tradition  if  the  apostle  John  was  really 
martyred  in  Palestine.  No  weight  could  attach  to  the 
bare  statement  found  in  a  single  MS.  of  the  Chronicle  of 
Greorgios  Hamartolos  that  in  the  second  book  of  his  Logia, 
Papias  stated  that  John  the  apostle  was  put  to  death  by 
Jews.  The  Chronicle  belongs  to  the  ninth  century,  and 
the  statement  is  found  only  in  one  of  the  twenty-eight 
MSS.  of  the  work.  There  is,  however,  a  confirmation  of 
it  in  an  extract  from  a  MS.  of  an  epitome  that  seems  to  be 
based  on  the  Chronicle  of  Philip  of  Side,  which  belongs 
to  a  date  early  in  the  fifth  century.  Here  we  read, 
'  Papias  says  in  his  second  book  that  John  the  Divine  and 
his  brother  James  were  slain  by  Jews.'    And  as  confirming 

^  In  any  case  PHeiderer's  statenient  is  extravagant  that  tlie  silence  of  on< 
who,  in  time  as  well  as  locality,  stood  so  near  the  Ephf  sian  John  of  tradition, 
and  had  snch  urgent  reasons  to  appeal  to  him,  is  sufScient  by  itself  to  refuta 
(his  tradition  ( Urehristentvm,  toI  iL  pp.  413,  414). 


XIV]  THE  JOHANNINE  WKITINGS  143 

this,  we  have  the  argument  derived  from  the  oracle  in 
Mark,  that  James  and  John  should  drink  of  the  cup 
Jesus  drank  of  and  be  baptized  with  His  baptism. 
Without  knowing  of  the  alleged  quotation  from  Papias, 
Wellhausen  had  inferred  from  this  passage  in  Mark  that 
both  John  and  James  had  been  already  martyred  when 
the  Gospel  was  written.  In  his  note  on  Mark  x.  39  he 
says :  '  The  prophecy  of  martyrdom  refers  not  simply 
to  James  but  also  to  John,  and  if  half  of  it  remained  un- 
fulfilled it  would  hardly  have  stood  in  the  Gospel.  Accord- 
ingly a  serious  objection  is  raised  against  the  reliability 
of  the  tradition  that  the  apostle  John  died  a  peaceful 
death  at  an  advanced  age.' 

Apparently  Wellhausen  does  not  regard  the  oracle  as 
authentic,  but  as  very  old.  E.  Schwartz  was  stimulated 
by  Wellhausen's  note  to  pubhsh  a  special  discussion  of  the 
subject.  He  thinks  that  the  oracle  was  very  old,  inas- 
much as  the  later  Gospels  tone  down  the  story,  but  he 
supposes  it  to  have  originated  from  the  martyrdom  of  the 
two  apostles.  From  the  reference  to  the  seats,  the  one 
at  the  right  hand  and  the  other  at  the  left,  he  infers  that 
they  must  actually  have  been  martyred  at  the  same  time, 
and  that  this  claim  cannot  have  been  made  for  them 
unless  they  had  been  the  first  of  the  twelve  to  be  martyred, 
and  for  some  time  remained  the  only  martyrs.  These 
results  are  stated  as  if  the  mere  statement  of  them  made 
them  self-evident,  and  the  diflficulties  in  the  way  are  very 
lightly  brushed  aside.  Schwartz  is  not  disturbed  by 
the  mention  of  John  in  Gal.  ii.  9  as  aUve  when  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  recognised  by  the  *  pillar  *  apostles,  but 
argues  that  the  John  intended  is  John  Mark.  Naturally 
this  does  not  at  all  harmonise  with  the  relative  positions 
assigned  to  Paul  and  John  Mark  in  the  narrative  of  Acts. 
Schwartz  has  no  hesitation  in  setting  this  aside,  especially 
as  the  legendary  character  of  the  mission  in  Cyprus  seems 
to  him  ^uite  obvious,  or  in  denying  the*  identity  of  John 


144      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oa 

Mai^  with  the  Maxk  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  A  furthei 
difficulty  is  that  Acts  is  completely  silent  about  the  death 
of  the  apostle  John,  and  this  is  explained  by  Schwartz 
as  due  to  deliberate  suppression  on  account  of  the  later 
tradition.  Besides,  how  was  it  that  John  Mark,  who  was 
not  one  of  the  twelve  nor  yet  a  kinsman  of  Christ,  came 
to  possess  so  eminent  a  position  in  the  Jerusalem  Church 
as  to  rank  with  Peter  and  James  the  Lord's  brother  ? 
The  only  answer  that  Schwartz  is  able  to  give  is  that  he 
was  the  son  of  the  Mary  who  permitted  meetings  of  the 
Church  in  her  house  ! 

It  is  scarcely  probable  that,  weighted  with  these 
numerous  improbabilities,  Schwartz's  theory  that  James 
and  John  perished  at  the  same  time  will  make  many 
converts.  Besides,  there  is  a  very  serious  difficulty 
created  by  the  fact,  as  Schwartz  considers  it,  that  Papias 
recognised  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  as 
the  work  of  the  apostle.  Is  it  likely  that  he  supposed 
that  John  was  put  to  death  by  Herod  Agrippa,  and 
yet  had  already  seen  his  vision  in  Patmos  and  written 
his  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  ?  Schwartz  replies 
that  Papias  tested  his  traditions  not  with  reference  to 
their  historical  truth  or  probability,  but  their  orthodox 
or  heretical  character.  But  surely  he  can  hardly  have 
been  unconscious  of  the  glaring  improbability  which  would 
thus  be  created,  especially  as  his  familiarity  with  the 
conditions  of  the  apostolic  age  must  have  been  sufficient 
to  assure  him  that  the  residence  in  Patmos  could  not 
possibly  be  placed  so  early.  It  is  therefore  extremely 
difficult  to  accept  Schwartz's  view  that  John  was 
martyred  at  the  same  time  as  James.  Wellhausen  at  one 
time  rejected  the  view  that  John  died  at  the  same  time  as 
James  though  he  has  since  accepted  it  {Das  Ev.  Johannis, 
p.  100),  and  most  of  those  who  accept  the  quotation  from 
Papias  as  authentic  and  historical  will  probably  refuse  to 
date  the  martyrdom  of  John  so  early  as  the  reign  of  Herod 


UT.]  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS  146 

Agrippa.  Clemen  {American  Journal  of  Theology,  vol.  ix.) 
believes  that  Papias  made  the  statement  attributed  to 
him,  but  that  it  was  a  mere  inference  from  Mark,  and 
tmhistorical.  It  should  be  added  as  a  further  piece  of 
evidence  that  in  the  Syriac  Calendar  |of  the  Church  ol 
Edessa,  the  MS.  of  which  is  dated  a.d.  411,  we  have 
John  and  James  coupled  together  as  martjn-s  at  Jerusalem 
and  they  are  described  as  apostles,  the  date  of  their 
martyrdom  being  Dec.  27th.  John  is  apparently  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  though  in  the  entry  for  Deo.  26th  Stephen 
is  described  as  '  Stephen  the  apostle.*  In  a  Carthaginian 
calendar  we  have  John  the  Baptist  in  place  of  the 
apostle,  but  this  is  clearly  a  correction,  for  the  Baptist 
is  also  commemorated  on  June  24th.  But  J.  H.  Bernard 
has  shown  that  we  cannot  rely  on  this  evidence  to  prove 
the  martyrdom  {Irish  Church  Quarterly,  vol.  i.),  and 
his  arguments  have  been  accepted  not  only  by  J.  A. 
Robinson  but  by  Hamack,  who  has  all  along  refused 
to  credit  the  story,  though  he  denies  the  Ephesian  residence 
of  the  apostle. 

In  spite  of  these  arguments  and  the  confidence  with 
which  many  critics  accept  them,  the  gravest  doubts  must 
arise  as  to  whether  Papias  ever  made  the  statement  at 
all.  For  all  scholars  have  said  to  the  contrary,  it  is  hard 
to  beUeve  that  in  the  face  of  it  the  view  that  John  died  a 
peaceful  death  in  Asia  in  extreme  old  age  could  ever  have 
gained  its  universal  currency.  Irenaeus  appeals  to  Papias 
as  an  authority,  at  the  same  time  he  betrays  no  shadow 
of  misgiving  that  his  opponents  had  at  hand  so  awkward 
an  argument  with  which  to  pulverise  his  statement. 
Eusebius  similarly  is  quite  unaware,  so  far  as  appears, 
that  any  such  statement  was  made,  and  yet  he  read 
Papias  thoroughly.  That  Eusebius  deliberately  sup- 
pressed the  statement  is  hard  to  believe.  He  could  not 
remove  it  from  the  pages  of  Papias  if  he  wished,  and  his 
opposition  to  Papias*  millenarianiam  might  have  made 


146      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

him  welcome  such  an  exhibition  of  Papias'  capacity  for 
blundering.  We  need  not  doubt  that  Papias  must  have 
said  something  which  gave  rise  to  the  distorted  statement 
that  we  at  present  possess,  but  what  this  statement  was, 
whether  it  had  originally  reference  to  John  the  Baptist, 
as  Zahn  supposes,  or  whether,  as  Lightfoot  and  Hamack 
have  suggested,  something  has  dropped  out  of  the  text, 
will  be  shown  only  when  further  evidence  is  discovered. 

Further,  if  the  identification  of  the  beloved  disciple  with 
the  apostle  John  can  be  accepted  we  have  another  piece 
of  evidence  in  the  appendix  to  the  Gospel.  Its  point  is, 
that  while  Peter  is  to  die  a  martyr's  death,  the  beloved 
disciple  is  not.  Whether  the  appendix  was  written  by 
the  author  of  the  Grospel  or  not,  it  must  have  been  written 
very  early,  and  probably  published  at  the  same  time  as 
the  Gospel,  since  we  have  no  trace  that  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel  was  ever  in  circulation  without  it.  The  chapter 
then  gives  us  evidence,  at  least  contemporary  with  Papias 
and  probably  earlier,  that  the  beloved  disciple  did  not  die 
a  martyr's  death.  Moreover,  the  prominence  which  the 
beloved  disciple  receives  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  points  in 
the  same  direction  if  the  common  view  is  correct  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  originated  in  or  near  Ephesus.  K  the 
Grospel  was  the  work  of  the  beloved  disciple,  such  promi- 
nence is  readily  accounted  for.  But  if  it  was  not  his  work, 
then  the  question  arises  why  in  this  Gospel  he  is  so  much 
more  prominent  than  in  the  Synoptists.  Obviously 
because  he  was  of  special  interest  to  the  circle  out  of  which 
it  came.  But  if  it  originated  in  Asia,  why  should  John  the 
apostle  be  thus  honoured  there  ?  The  best  explanation 
is  given  by  the  tradition  which  asserts  that  during  the 
latter  part  of  his  life  he  lived  in  Ephesus,  and  gathered 
pupils  about  him  to  whom  he  was  the  object  of  special 
veneration.  Hamack  himself  is  so  impressed  by  this  that, 
while  he  denies  the  tradition,  he  thinks  that  John  at  some 
time  paid  a  visit,  though  only  a  brief  one,  %o  Ephesua. 


XIV.]  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS  147 

It  is  questionable,  however,  whether  a  brief  visit  would 
make  the  impression  that  he  seems  to  have  made  in  Asia. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  the  quaHfication  has  been 
constantly  made  that  this  or  that  argument  holds  good 
only  if  the  beloved  disciple  and  the  apostle  John  are 
to  be  identified.  This  identification  has  been  universally 
made  in  tradition,  and  it  is  still  accepted  by  the  great 
majority  of  critics.  Some,  it  is  true,  have  considered  him 
an  ideal  figure  invented  by  the  evangelist.  This  view, 
however,  may  be  safely  set  aside.  It  would  be  hard  to 
hold  it  in  face  of  the  phenomena  of  the  Gospel.  But 
it  is  really  impossible,  with  any  show  of  reason,  to  carry 
it  through  for  the  appendix.  The  author  is  obviously 
embarrassed  by  the  necessity  of  clearing  up  a  prevalent 
misunderstanding,  to  the  effect  that  Jesus  had  promised 
that  this  disciple  should  not  die  till  His  return.  People 
do  not  speculate  on  the  future  of  non-existent  persons, 
and  certainly  if  the  evangelist  had  created  the  figure  he 
would  never  have  represented  such  a  misunderstanding  as 
arising,  still  less  have  felt  himself  under  the  compulsion 
of  correcting  it.  It  is  plain  that  the  writer  is  confronted 
by  a  real  difficulty  touching  a  real  person,  about  whom 
a  current  expectation  had  been  or  was  hkely  to  be  falsified. 

Assuming,  then,  that  there  was  a  beloved  disciple,  is 
any  other  identification  than  the  usual  one  possible  ?  The 
view  put  forward  by  Delff  may  first  be  mentioned.  He 
ehminates  from  the  Gospel  most  of  the  Prologue  and  the 
Galilaean  sections.  He  thinks  the  author  was  named  John, 
and  belonged  to  one  of  the  high-priestly  families  in 
Jerusalem,  better  educated  than  the  apostles  and  there- 
fore more  capable  of  appreciating  the  deeper  teaching  of 
Jesus,  a  friend  of  Nicodemus.  In  the  first  edition  of  his 
Commentary  on  the  Apocalypse  (1896)  Bousset  put 
forward  the  view  that  there  was  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Uving 
in  Asia  to  extreme  old  age,  who  bore  the  name  of  John, 
and  is  to  be  identified  with  the  presbyter  John  of  Papias. 


148      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

This  John  was  the  beloved  disciple,  but  he  was  not  the 
apostle ;  he  was  an  inhabitant  of  Jerusalem,  and  connected 
with  the  high-priestly  family.  He  has  since  modified 
his  position  in  a  more  negative  direction  {Theologische 
Rundschau,  June  and  July  1905).  He  now  leaves  the 
question  open  whether  the  presbyter  John  had  actually 
seen  Jesus.  He  may  have  done  so,  but  he  may  simply 
have  belonged  to  the  primitive  Jerusalem  Church,  and 
have  been  called  a  '  disciple  of  the  Lord '  in  that  wider 
sense.  He  was  not  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
which  was  written  by  one  of  his  disciples  some  decades 
after  his  death.  Apart  from  the  date  given  for  the  day  of 
Christ's  death,  we  have  no  tradition  in  the  Grospel  superior 
to  the  Synoptic.  The  part  assigned  to  the  beloved  disciple 
in  the  Gospel  is  of  a  fanciful  character ;  indeed,  on  the 
general  question  as  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Gospel 
he  occupies  pretty  much  the  same  position  as  other 
advanced  critics  (see  the  summary  in  his  Was  Wissen  mr 
von  Jesus  ?). 

The  identification  of  the  beloved  disciple  with  John  of 
Jerusalem  seems  to  be  growing  in  favour,  and  mediate 
or  immediate  authorship  is  claimed  for  this  John  rather 
than  the  apostle  by  Von  Dobschiitz,  Burkitt  and 
others.  This  theory  has  some  advantages  :  it  accounts 
for  the  prominence  given  to  Jerusalem  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  removes  some  of  the  difficulties  that  have 
been  felt  as  to  the  authorship  of  such  a  work  by  the  apostle 
John.  In  spite,  however,  of  its  attractiveness  it  is  exposed 
to  considerable  difficulty.  It  is  possible  to  identify  the 
beloved  disciple  with  one  of  the  '  two  other  of  his  disciples ' 
mentioned  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  (cf.  i.  35)  rather  than 
with  one  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  though  on  a  fishing 
expedition  in  Galilee  we  do  not  expect  the  High  Priest's 
friend  from  Jerusalem.  It  is  even  possible  that  one  who 
was  not  an  apostle  was  present  at  the  Last  Supper, 
especially  if  he  were  the  host  in  whose  house  the  supper 


ar.\  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS  149 

was  held.  But  it  is  very  improbable  that  the  place  of 
chief  honour  at  the  feast  should  be  accorded  to  one  who 
was  not  an  apostle.  Moreover,  the  close  association  with 
Peter  points  to  the  apostle  John,  since  the  two  are  closely 
associated  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  difficulties  which  seem  to  many  scholars  to 
negative  the  supposition  that  the  Gospel  was  written  by  an 
eye-witness  are  not  much  relieved  by  this  hypothesis, 
inasmuch  as  they  specially  touch  those  very  points  on 
which  a  Jerusalem  resident  should  have  been  exceptionally 
well-informed.  On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  best  to 
acquiesce  in  the  usual  view  which  has  recently  been  re- 
affirmed by  Hamack,  that  the  beloved  disciple  was  none 
other  than  the  son  of  Zebedee.  So  far  then  from  having 
suffered  martyrdom  in  Palestine,  he  lived  to  so  extreme 
an  old  age  that  the  saying  was  current  about  him  that  ho 
would  survive  till  the  Second  Coming. 

It  may  be  convenient  to  discuss  here  another  question 
raised  by  the  passages  which  speak  of  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved.  In  an  extremely  acute  and  suggestive  study 
of  the  Monarchian  Prologues  to  the  Gospels  published  in 
Grebhardt  and  Hamack's  Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
Corssen  found  in  the  Leucian  Acts  of  John  the  key  to  the 
Gospel.  His  discussion  has  attracted  great  attention, 
and  Pfleiderer  has  accepted  his  results.  In  the  Acts  of 
John  a  Docetic  view  of  Christ's  Person  is  taken.  During 
the  Crucifixion,  Jesus  appeared  to  the  apostle  John  on  the 
Mount  of  OUves,  and  revealed  to  him  that  while  for  the 
crowd  He  was  suffering  in  Jerusalem,  John  alone  was 
deemed  worthy  of  the  revelation  that  the  Crucifixion  was 
an  empty  appearance.  The  Acts  explained  why  John 
was  the  beloved  disciple,  a  thing  which  the  Gospel  does  not 
do.  It  was  because  of  his  celibacy.  Corssen  argued  that 
the  author  of  the  Leucian  Acts  did  not  know  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  that  if  there  was  dependence  they  were  the 
ori^nal.    If  the  two  works,  however,  were  independent, 


150      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

then  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  based  on  an  earlier  form 
of  the  tradition  later  embodied  in  the  Acts.  In  order  to 
attack  the  Docetic  doctrine  the  Fourth  EvangeUst  wrote 
a  Gospel  vigorously  asserting  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation 
and  real  humanity  of  Christ.  He  took  from  the  Docetista 
the  John  under  whose  name  they  had  promulgated  their 
doctrines  and  made  him  the  guarantee  for  his  own.  But 
since  caution  was  necessary,  he  did  not  openly  say  who  the 
beloved  disciple  was,  though  he  indicated  that  John  was 
intended. 

This  theory  suffers  under  several  disabilities.  In  the 
first  place,  Corssen's  theory  of  the  relation  between  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  cannot  be  maintained ;  it  is  very 
improbable  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  can  be  so  late  as 
the  Leucian  Acts  ;  the  date  of  the  latter  is  uncertain,  but 
it  is  not  probable  that  they  are  as  early  as  130,  and  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  so  late.  Of 
course  this  does  not  negative  Corssen's  general  theory, 
for  the  Acts  may  embody  earlier  stories.  Still,  these  have 
to  be  postulated.  In  the  next  place,  Corssen  seems  to 
invert  the  relation  between  Christ's  special  affection  for 
John  and  his  cehbacy.  The  representation  is  not  that 
his  celibacy  was  the  caiise  of  Christ's  love  {Monarchianische 
Prologe,  p.  131),  but  the  effect  of  it.  If  so  the  Acts  do  not 
account  any  more  than  the  Gospel  for  the  love  entertained 
by  Jesus  for  him.  The  Gospel  gives  no  explanation 
because  none  was  needed ;  it  was  simply  the  statement 
of  a  fact.  The  extravagant  importance  attached  to 
virginity,  not  only  by  the  Gnostics  but  by  others  in  the 
early  Church,  as  we  see  from  the  story  of  Paul  and  Thecla, 
comes  out  in  the  emphasis  on  the  virginity  of  the  beloved 
disciple.  But  how,  on  Corssen's  view,  did  the  stoiy  of 
his  virginity  arise  at  all  ?  He  himself  rejects  the 
suggestion  that  it  had  anything  to  do  with  Rev.  xiv.  4. 
Pfleiderer,  however,  has  seen  in  that  passage  the  key  to 
*i:e  Tfeory ;    he  argues  from  it  that  the  prophet  John  to 


«▼.]  THE  JOHANNINE  WRITINGS  161 

whom  we  owe  the  Apocalypse  was  not  only  a  prophel 
but  also  an  ascetic,  and  that  the  whole  story  which  we 
find  in  the  Leucian  Acts  and  then  in  the  Gospel  of  John 
about  the  beloved  disciple  arose  in  this  way.  The 
Gnostics  made  the  virgin  and  prophet  John  of  the 
Apocalypse  into  the  beloved  disciple  on  account  of  hia 
virginity,  and  then  in  virtue  of  this  close  relation  to  Jesus 
made  him  the  recipient  of  esoteric  revelations ;  thus  they 
managed  to  secure  his  sanction  to  their  own  Gnostic 
doctrine.  The  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  wrested  their 
weapon  from  them  and  turned  it  against  them,  using  for 
his  own  representation  the  great  prestige  which  the  name 
of  John  had  thus  acquired.  The  prophet  John  may  have 
been  a  celibate ;  that  ia  pure  assumption.  But  since  in 
this  very  passage  the  Apocalypse  represents  the  number 
of  ceUbates  who  accompany  the  Lamb  as  144,000,  it  seems 
not  to  have  been  such  an  exceptional  virtue  as  to  qualify 
for  John's  exceptional  position.  The  usual  view  is  not 
only  far  more  obvious,  but  it  haa  support  from  the  position 
accorded  to  John  by  Jesus  in  the  Synoptists,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  prominence  he  enjoyed  in  the  primitive  Church,  as 
■hown  both  by  Galatfans  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 


i6S      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oB. 


CHAPTER  XT 

THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN 

It  may  initiate  us  more  easily  into  the  tangled  problems 
of  this  book,  if  we  remind  ourselves  of  the  various  ways 
in  which  they  have  been  handled  by  modem  scholars. 
A  quarter  of  a  century  ago  the  opinion  was  confidently 
expressed  that  from  being  the  most  obscure  it  had  come 
to  be  the  most  easily  understood  portion  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  was  not  unnatural  that  such  an  opinion 
should  be  expressed.  The  briUiant  work  which  had  been 
performed  by  such  scholars  as  Liicke,  Ewald,  and  Bleek 
seemed  to  have  made  plain  the  true  character  of  the  book. 
The  points  to  which  one  would  specially  direct  attention 
in  their  work  were  the  following  : — First  of  all,  they 
rescued  the  Biblical  apocalypses  from  their  isolation. 
So  long  as  the  Book  of  Revelation  could  be  illustrated 
only  by  the  Book  of  Daniel  and  sporadic  sections  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  the  material  at  the  disposal 
of  their  interpreters  was  seriously  limited.  When,  how- 
ever, it  was  recognised  that  the  BibUcal  apocalypses  were 
only  a  section  of  a  much  larger  Uterature,  a  new  era  in 
their  interpretation  began.  They  were  studied  in  the 
light  of  this  larger  Uterature,  and  much  that  had  been 
dark  now  became  plain.  And  as  these  non-canonical 
writings  have  themselves  been  more  closely  studied, 
the  results  have  been  very  fruitful  for  the  understanding 
of  the  canonical  apocalypses.  In  the  next  place  they 
emphasised  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  Revelation,  like  the 


XT.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  163 

Book  of  Daniel,  was  to  be  understood  through  the  con- 
temporary history.  The  identification  of  the  beast  with 
the  Roman  Empire  in  general,  and  with  Nero  in  particular, 
ruled  the  interpretation  of  the  book,  and  it  was  confidently 
beUeved  that  the  true  key,  after  centuries  of  futile  groping, 
had  been  discovered. 

The  dominant  school  of  critics  accordingly  took  the 
apocalypse  to  be  a  unity  and  to  reflect  ihe  political  con- 
ditions shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  In 
1886,  however,  Vischer  published  an  investigation  which 
placed  the  problem  in  a  new  Ught.  He  put  forward  the 
theory  that  the  Apocalypse  was  a  fundamentally  Jewish 
writing  worked  over  by  a  Christian  hand.  Hamack,  his 
teacher,  at  first  gave  the  new  theory  no  cordial  reception, 
but  on  studying  the  book  afresh  in  the  light  of  it  was 
converted  to  it.  As  we  look  back  it  is  perhaps  less  sur- 
prising than  Hamack  felt  at  the  time  that  such  a  solution 
should  have  been  put  forward.  The  method  of  Uterary 
analysis  had  been  apphed  to  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
Synoptic  Grospels,  not  to  mention  other  parts  of  BibUcal 
hterature,  and  it  was  therefore  not  to  be  wondered  at  that 
it  should  be  appUed  to  the  Revelation.  And  once  the 
idea  had  been  started  that  more  hands  than  one  had  been 
at  work  on  the  book,  it  was  not  a  difficult  step  to  the 
theory  that  one  of  the  hands  was  Jewish  and  not  Christian. 
In  fact,  it  was  rather  an  accident  that  it  fell  to  Vischer  to 
cause  the  sensation  which  was  created  by  the  publication 
of  his  study.  For,  apart  from  other  suggestions,  Spitta, 
a  very  acute  and  learned  scholar,  had  already  worked  out 
an  elaborate  analysis  of  the  book,  which  he  published 
not  so  long  after  (in  1889)  with  valuable  exegetical  dis- 
cussions which  still  reward  patient  study  even  on  the  part 
of  those  who  cannot  accept  his  main  thesis.  The  method 
of  analytic  criticism,  once  started,  ran  riot,  and  much 
ephemeral  literature  was  published  designed  to  solve  the 
riddle  as  to  the  structure  of  the  book. 


164      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

The  movement  received  its  quietus  with  Gunkel,  who 
published  in  1895  his  epoch-making  Schdpfung  und  Chaos 
(*  Creation  and  Chaos ').  The  book  was  an  investigation 
of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  the  twelfth  chapter  of 
the  Apocalypse,  but  it  was  a  fundamental  investigation 
and  embraced  much  more  than  would  be  suggested  by  the 
title.  The  literary  analysis  had  been  intended  to  do 
Justice  to  the  inconsistencies  and  incongruities  within 
the  book  which  seemed  to  point  to  the  authorship  of  two 
or  more  writers.  Gunkel  introduced  another  method  to 
explain  the  phenomena.  The  sharp  criticism  to  which 
he  subjected  the  theories  of  his  predecessors  misled  some 
into  thinking  that  he  was  on  principle  opposed  to  analytic 
criticism.  This  was  a  mistake,  and  those  who  were  looking 
to  him  to  lead  a  reaction  against  Old  Testament  criticism 
were  sharply  disillusioned  by  his  very  important  com- 
mentary on  Grenesis,  in  which  he  not  only  accepted  the 
customary  analysis  into  four  main  documents  and  the 
Grafian  theory  as  to  their  order,  but  analysed  narratives 
which  had  previously  been  treated  as  unities.  To  the 
Apocalypse,  however,  he  apphed  a  different  method. 
The  phenomena,  he  said,  which  the  analysts  pointed  out 
were  there,  but  their  explanation  was  incorrect.  They 
could  be  rightly  accounted  for  only  on  the  view  that  the 
Apocalypse  incorporated  a  very  ancient  eschatological 
tradition  which  originated  in  Babylonia  and  had  a  con- 
tinuous history  reaching  back  for  some  thousands  of 
years.  During  that  period  it  was  natural  that  inconsis- 
tencies should  arise,  and  these  were  not  to  be  explained  as 
due  to  the  hterary  blending  of  works  by  different  authors  ; 
they  had  arisen  in  the  development  of  the  tradition  itself. 
Much  in  the  Apocalypse  and  in  Daniel  was  unintelligible 
to  the  au^ors  themselves.  They  regarded  the  tradition, 
however,  as  sacred,  and  therefore  preserved  what  was 
mysterious  as  well  as  what  they  understood.  Moreover, 
Gunkel  attacked  not  only  the  analysts,  but  those  who 


XV.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  160 

explained  the  Apocalypse  through  contemporary  history. 
He  did  not,  it  is  true,  deny  references  to  current  condi- 
tions entirely,  but  much  that  had  been  so  interpreted  he 
explained  as  far  more  ancient. 

Gunkel's  work  naturally  made  an  immense  impression. 
It  left  its  mark  deep  upon  Bousset's  commentary,  which 
appeared  the  following  year,  and  also  on  his  special  in- 
vestigation into  the  doctrine  of  Antichrist.  Bousset, 
however,  was  much  less  averse  than  Gunkel  from  admitting 
allusions  to  contemporary  history,  and  he  recognised  the 
employment  of  sources  by  the  author,  though  he  believed 
tliat  he  was  no  mere  compiler  but  had  impressed  his  own 
stamp  everywhere  on  the  book.  Wellhausen  had  some 
important  pages  on  the  subject  in  the  sixth  part  of  his 
Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten.  He  was  especially  severe  on 
Gunkel's  attempt  to  refer,  as  he  said,  everjrthing  possible 
and  impossible  to  a  Babylonian  origin.  As  regards  the 
twelfth  chapter,  which  constitutes  the  greatest  difficulty 
for  those  who  consider  the  book  to  be  purely  Christian, 
he  agreed  with  Vischer  as  against  Weizsacker  that  it  was  in 
the  main  of  Jewish  origin. 

In  the  important  second  edition  of  his  Urehristentum, 
published  in  1902,  Pfleiderer  revealed  himself  as  an  adherent 
of  the  RdigionsgeschicMliche  Methode  which  Gunkel  had 
brought  into  such  prominence.  But  he  recognised  to  a 
very  much  fuller  extent  than  Gunkel  that  the  author  had 
drawn  on  earher  literary  sources.  A  much  more  pro- 
nounced return  to  the  analytic  method  came  with  the 
pubUcation  of  a  special  investigation  from  the  pen  of 
J.  Weiss  which  appeared  in  1904.  The  author  had  been 
much  influenced  by  Spitta's  keen-sighted  investigation, 
and  his  analysis  reminds  us  at  certain  points  of  that  given 
by  his  predecessor,  but  it  was  more  plausible  and  perhaps 
less  mechanical.  At  the  close  of  his  investigation  he 
brought  the  problem  of  the  Apocalypse  into  connexion 
with  the  larger  problem  of  the  Johannine  Uterature  in 


166      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       fcH. 

general,  but  simply  sketched  his  results,  leaving  the  detailed 
establishment  of  them  to  a  later  period.  His  theory  was 
as  follows  :  John  of  Asia,  whom,  in  common  with  a  large 
number  of  modem  scholars,  he  identified  with  the  presbyter 
and  not  with  the  apostle,  shortly  before  the  year  a.d.  70 
composed  an  apocalypse.  Subsequently,  having  out- 
grown his  apocalyptic  stage,  he  composed  the  letters  which 
go  by  his  name  and  wrote  reminiscences  of  Jesus.  In  the 
reign  of  Domitian  a  disciple  of  John  who  had  not  kept 
pace  with  his  master  in  his  development  took  up  his 
earlier  apocalypse.  He  combined  with  it  a  Jewish 
apocalypse  composed  in  the  year  a.d.  70,  to  some  extent 
probably  out  of  pre-existing  materials,  and  added  a  good 
deal  of  his  own  and  thus  created  our  present  Apocalypse. 
What  had  happened  to  John's  Apocalypse  happened 
later  to  his  reminiscences.  These  also  were  taken  and 
expanded  into  our  Fourth  Gospel.  A  judgment  on  the 
whole  scheme  can  hardly  be  pronounced  before  the 
author's  case  for  it  is  fully  published,  and  it  will  then  be 
seen  whether  he  has  been  more  successful  than  his  pre- 
decessors in  reversing  the  judgment  of  Strauss  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  like  the  seamless  robe — we  can  cast 
lots  for  it,  but  we  cannot  divide  it.  So  far  as  the  Apoca- 
lypse is  concerned,  the  theory  has  not  been  favourably 
received,  Swete  and  Sanday  in  this  country  have  pro- 
nounced against  it,  and  this  is  true  also  of  Jiilicher  in  the 
latest  edition  of  his  Introduction,  and  Bousset  in  the 
valuable  second  edition  of  his  Commentary,  which  appeared 
in  1908,  to  say  nothing  of  other  scholars.  A  very  interest- 
ing and  suggestive  analysis  of  the  Apocalypse  has  recently 
been  published  by  Wellhausen.  It  is  a  very  independent 
piece  of  work,  reminding  one  not  a  little  of  J.  Weiss.  He 
considers  that  Nero  Caesar  is  the  correct  solution  of  the 
number  666,  but  regards  it  as  merely  a  gloss  which  has  had 
the  effect  of  throwing  students  off  the  right  scent.  It  is 
not  the  key,  as  hafl  been  thought,  to  the  understanding  of 


XT.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  167 

Ihe  whole  book,  but  simply  to  the  misunderstanding  ol 
the  figure  of  the  beast. 

The  story  of  these  attempts  to  solve  the  riddle  of  the 
book  will  naturally  make  on  many  readers  the  impression 
that  criticism  will  be  forced  to  confess  itself  bankrupt. 
We  ought  rather  to  conclude  that  we  shall  understand  it 
only  by  an  eclectic  method,  which  combines  the  lines  along 
which  the  solution  has  been  sought.  We  must  recognise 
in  it  a  reflection  of  contemporary  history,  the  stratification 
of  documents,  and  the  incorporation  of  very  ancient 
apocalyptic  tradition.  The  earlier  critics  were  right, 
not  only  in  the  emphasis  they  laid  on  its  relationship  to 
the  cognate  literature,  but  in  their  conviction  of  relevance 
to  the  conditions  of  the  time.  The  writer  diverges  from 
many  apocalyptists  in  that  he  does  not  write  history  in 
the  guise  of  prediction.  Still  less  is  he  concerned  with  a 
distant  future ;  the  end  is  at  hand.  It  is  with  the  urgent 
problems  of  the  troubled  present  and  the  still  darker 
immediate  future  that  he  is  concerned.  There  are  not 
easily  missed  contemporary  references.  The  whole  aim 
of  the  Apocalypse  in  its  present  form  is  to  encourage  the 
Christians  in  the  persecution  they  are  suffering  from  the 
Roman  Empire.  The  scarlet  woman  is  drunk  with  the 
blood  of  the  saints,  the  souls  under  the  altar  cry  to  God  to 
avenge  their  blood,  the  martyrs  of  Jesus  are  seen  after  they 
have  passed  through  the  great  tribulation.  It  is  the 
worship  of  the  Emperor  which  constitutes  the  peril  to  the 
Church  and  its  terrible  temptation  to  apostasy.  Other 
illustrations  of  this  reference  to  contemporary  events  or 
anticipations  are  to  be  found  in  the  mention  of  the  death 
of  Nero  and  his  expected  return,  the  prediction  of  the 
overthrow  of  Rome,  the  city  on  seven  hills,  by  the  beast 
in  alliance  with  the  ten  kings,  and  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
except  the  Temple.  Yet  while  we  are  to  see  in  the  Roman 
Empire  the  power  to  which  the  Church  stands  in  implacable 
antagonism,  while  Nero  is  to  return  from  hell  as  tbe  beast's 


168      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

last  incarnation,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  interpret  all 
the  details  in  the  book  as  created  by  the  contemporary 
situation.  It  is  obviously  likely  that  the  acceptance 
of  the  other  methods  would  carry  with  it  a  different 
attitude  towards  the  interpretation  of  the  details.  If 
earlier  sources  lie  behind  the  present  form  of  the  book, 
we  should  naturally  assume  that  they  depict  a  somewhat 
different  situation.  And  since  it  is  with  a  long-continued 
tradition  that  we  have  to  deal,  the  key  to  some  of  the 
details  may  quite  easily  be  altogether  lost. 

That  Gunkel  rightly  refers  much  in  the  Apocalypse  to 
very  ancient  tradition  can  hardly  be  doubted.  The 
twelfth  chapter,  while,  apart  from  Christian  interpolations, 
in  its  present  form  a  piece  of  Jewish  Messianic  theology, 
cannot  be  explained  without  reference  to  a  Gentile  origin. 
That  we  should  follow  Dieterich  in  connecting  it  with  the 
story  of  the  birth  of  Apollo  can  hardly  be  believed,  and  it 
would  be  premature  to  find  in  it  with  Gunkel  a  version  of  the 
birth  of  Marduk,  for  which  we  have  as  yet  no  Babylonian 
evidence.  The  parallel  of  the  birth  of  Horus,  adduced 
by  Bousset,  lies  open  to  less  serious  objection.  Probably, 
however,  both  the  Apollo  and  the  Horus  myth  are  forms 
of  the  very  widespread  myth  of  the  conflict  between  the 
chaos-demon  and  the  sun-god.  This  has  been  transformed 
in  Judaism  into  a  Messianic  forecast.  And  elsewhere  we  may 
discover  clear  traces  of  dependence  on  traditional  apoca- 
lyptic lore.  Where  we  find  the  writer  introducing  elements 
which  seem  to  have  no  significance  for  himself  and  receive 
no  development,  we  may  infer  with  some  probability  that 
these  have  been  derived  from  older  tradition  and  have  no 
reference  to  contemporary  history.  In  other  cases  where 
we  can  be  sure  of  direct  borrowing  from  an  older  source, 
we  cannot  be  sure  whether  the  borrowed  elements  were 
intended  by  the  author  to  refer  to  events  in  the  history 
of  his  own  time,  or  whether  he  simply  took  them  over 
into  his  own  scheme  because  he  did  not  feel  free  to  cast 


XV.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  169 

them  aside  although  their  meaning  was  not  clear  to  himself. 
For  example,  the  figure  of  the  beast  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  is  directly  derived  from  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Daniel.  The  beast  is  represented  as  having  ten  horns, 
these  horns  are  in  Daniel  identified  as  kings,  therefore  in 
Revelation  they  are  represented  as  wearing  diadems. 
Usually  interpreters  think  the  ten  horns  represent  ten 
Roman  Emperors,  but  this  is  difficult  to  harmonise  with 
the  interpretation  given  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  where 
the  beast  reappears,  so  that  it  is  quite  possible  that  the 
author  took  over  the  horns  simply  as  a  part  of  the  tradition 
without  attaching  any  special  significance  to  them.  At 
the  same  time  two  quaUfications  must  be  borne  in  mind. 
In  the  first  place  the  very  fact  that  the  apocalyptist 
incorporated  a  piece  of  earlier  tradition  probably  implies 
that  he  saw  sufficient  general  resemblance  to  the  con- 
temporary conditions  to  induce  him  thus  to  incorporate 
it,  so  that  even  if  the  details  in  many  cases  are  devoid  of 
special  importance  the  general  outlines  may  bear  signific- 
ance for  his  own  time.  And  secondly,  we  must  not  assume 
too  readily  that  the  details  which  are  borrowed  are  neces- 
sarily without  meaning.  Gunkel'swork,  however,  while  most 
valuable  and  stimulating,  was  itself  open  to  some  criticisms. 
In  the  first  place  he  probably  much  overrated  the  Baby- 
lonian origin  of  the  material.  In  the  next  place  he  denied 
allusions  to  contemporary  history  where  they  probably 
really  exist.  Lastly,  he  beheved  too  exclusively  in  the 
value  of  his  own  method.  Some  at  least  of  the  incon- 
gruities ii  the  book  cannot  have  thus  originated,  we  must 
seek  for  their  origin  in  the  combination  of  literary  sources. 
In  spite  of  the  recoil  from  analytic  criticism,  the  present 
writer  believes  that  it  is  not  possible  to  regard  the  Apoca- 
Ijrpse  as  a  unity.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  there  is  a  very 
marked  unity  in  the  style  and  character  which  forbids 
us  to  suppose  that  the  book  is  a  mere  compilation.  It  is 
with  a  real  author  that  we  have  to  do,  not  simply  with  an 


160      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       foa 

editor ;  with  an  author  who  has  left  his  impress  on  the  book. 
But  while  he  has  stamped  it  with  his  own  individuaUty, 
he  has  borrowed  from  earlier  sources.  He  hints  this 
himself,  not  obscurely,  in  his  description  of  the  little  book 
which  he  took  and  ate  (x.  8-11),  and  in  the  veiled  reference 
to  the  seven-thunders  apocalypse  (x.  4)  which  he  was 
apparently  inclined  to  incorporate.  We  have  probably 
to  recognise  the  presence  in  the  book  of  non-Christian 
elements.  In  xi.  1,2  the  anticipation  seems  to  be  expressed 
that  while  Jerusalem  would  be  captured,  the  Temple 
including  the  forecourt  would  be  preserved.  Is  it  likely 
that  a  Christian  writer  should  thus  contradict  Christ's 
prediction  that  not  one  stone  of  the  Temple  should  be  left 
upon  another  ?  Reverting  to  the  twelfth  chapter,  while 
its  ultimate  origin  must  be  sought  in  Pagan  mythology, 
it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  the  author  of  the  Revela- 
tion simply  drew  on  unwritten  tradition.  For  a  Christian 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah  and  His  earthly  career  belonged  to 
the  realm  of  history,  not  of  prediction.  How  could  such 
a  writer  represent  the  Messiah  as  caught  up  to  the  throne 
of  God  immediately  after  His  birth,  that  He  might  be 
saved  from  the  dragon  who  was  waiting  to  devour  Him  ? 
We  can  see  what  prompted  the  writer  to  include  the  section; 
it  was  to  warn  the  readers  that,  now  the  devil  has  been  cas* 
down  to  earth,  an  unprecedented  persecution  will  begm, 
but  to  comfort  them  with  the  assurance  that  when  the 
three  and  a  half  years  allotted  to  him  by  destiny  are  past, 
he  will  be  overthrown.  For  the  Messiah  is  already  in 
heaven,  and  will  intervene  when  the  time  is  ripe.  And 
yet,  while  the  section  had  this  significance  for  the  writer, 
the  bizarre  non-Christian  elements  in  it  would  naturally 
have  repelled  him.  This  suggests  the  possibility  not 
merely  that  it  lay  before  the  author  in  written  form, 
but  that  it  originally  belonged  to  a  larger  document, 
and  has  been  incorporated  not  so  much  for  its  own  sake 
but  as  part  of  a  fuller  insertion. 


XT.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  161 

The  numerous  incongruities  in  the  book  also  suggest 
composite  authorship.  In  some  parts  of  the  book,  e.g. 
the  letters  to  the  seven  churches,  we  gain  the  impression 
that  the  persecution  was  mild,  and  though  severe  measures 
were  anticipated,  these  were  not  of  an  extreme  character. 
But  other  parts  are  written  under  the  influence  of  a  very 
severe  persecution,  which  has  already  claimed  a  large 
number  of  victims,  and  which  is  expected  to  become  more 
terrible  still.  The  seventeenth  chapter,  which  is  perhaps 
the  most  important  in  the  book  for  the  determination  of 
the  Uterary  and  historical  problems  of  ihe  Apocalypse, 
exhibits  several  marks  of  composite  origin.  There  are 
two  interpretations  of  the  seven  heads  {w.  9  and  10).  In 
V.  14:  the  beast  with  the  ten  kings  wars  against  and  is  over- 
come by  the  Lamb  and  his  followers,  while  in  v.  16  the 
beast  and  the  kings  utterly  destroy  the  harlot,  and  do  so 
as  God's  instruments.  Again,  ihe  description  with  which 
the  vision  opens  is  that  of  the  great  harlot.  The  beast  on 
which  she  rides  is  a  very  subordinate  part  of  the  picture, 
in  which  the  scarlet  woman  forms  the  central  figure. 
When,  however,  the  explanation  follows,  the  woman  is 
much  less  prominent  than  the  beast.  Moreover,  the 
Judgment  on  the  harlot  seems  to  rest  on  different  grounds. 
In  w.  1-5  her  sin  is  that  of  luxury  and  uncleanness,  with 
which  she  has  contaminated  the  rest  of  the  world.  The 
goblet  she  holds  is  filled  with  the  wine  of  her  fornication. 
This  is  also  true  with  reference  to  the  closely  connected 
eighteenth  chapter.  The  Judgment  comes  on  her  for  the 
corrupting  influence  she  has  exerted  over  the  world  (xviii. 
3,  7, 9-19,  22,  23),  with  her  sorcery  all  the  nations  have  been 
deceived,  and  the  exhortation  to  God's  people  to  leave  her 
is  that  they  may  avoid  contamination  and  Judgment. 
But  according  to  xvii.  6  the  woman  is  drunk  with  the 
blood  of  the  saints,  in  xviii.  20  God  has  Judged  on  her  the 
Judgment  of  the  saints,  in  xviii.  24  in  her  is  found  the 
blood  of  prophets,  saints  and  all  that  have  been  slain  on  the 

h 


162      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       C<jh. 

earth.  Much  the  greater  part  of  ch.  xviii.  betrays  no 
consciousness  of  Rome  as  a  persecutor.  It  is  also  possible 
that  there  are  two  different  accounts  of  the  destruction 
of  Babylon.  In  xvii.  16  she  is  destroyed  by  the  beast 
and  the  ten  kings,  in  ch.  xviii.  there  is  no  reference  to 
these,  but  God  Judges  her  with  plagues  in  a  single  day. 
In  both  descriptions  she  is  utterly  burned  with  fire,  and 
there  is  no  necessary  discrepancy  between  the  two  accounts. 
If  composite  authorship,  however,  be  recognised,  it  is 
likely  that  the  two  belong  to  different  strata. 

Further,  there  seems  to  be  a  difiference  in  the  reckoning 
of  the  kings.  There  are  only  seven  emperors  of  Rome, 
since  the  beast  has  seven  heads.  The  author  of  xvii.  10 
writes  while  the  sixth  emperor  is  on  the  throne,  i.e.  pro- 
bably during  the  reign  of  Vespasian,  and  he  expects  the 
series  to  be  closed  by  another  emperor,  the  seventh,  who 
is  to  continue  a  httle  while.  According  to  t>.  11  there  are 
to  be  eight  emperors,  the  eighth  being  Antichrist;  he  is 
identified  with  one  of  the  seven  heads,  but  he  is  also 
identified  with  the  beast  that  was  and  is  not.  Several 
suppose  that  this  must  have  been  written  under  Domitian, 
and  was  intended  to  harmonise  the  fixed  number  of  the 
emperors  as  seven  with  the  fact  that  the  seventh  (Titus) 
after  a  brief  reign  {v.  10b)  had  been  succeeded  by  an 
eighth.  In  that  case  the  author  saw  in  Domitian  an  earlier 
member  of  the  series  reincarnate,  presumably  Nero.  It 
is  an  objection  to  this  that  we  have  no  evidence  of  a 
behef  that  Domitian  was  Nero  reincarnate,  nor  that  he  had 
risen  out  of  the  abyss.  Moreover,  the  author  oiv.  11  says 
that  he  '  is  not.'  It  may  therefore  be  better  to  conclude 
that  this  author  wrote  under  the  seventh  emperor  and  was 
driven  to  postulate  an  eighth  ruler  because  he  did  not 
identify  the  reigning  monarch  with  Antichrist,  but  had  to 
make  the  eighth  identical  with  one  of  the  seven,  because 
the  number  could  not  exceed  seven. 

On  the  exact  analysis  <^  ibis  section  opinions  differ, 


rv.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  163 

but  the  following  general  sketch  is  not  unlikely.  The 
earliest  stratum  predicts  Gkxi's  destruction  of  Rome  for 
luxury,  pride  and  immorality,  and  describes  the  grief  at 
her  downfall  felt  by  those  who  had  been  associated  with 
het  sin.  There  is  no  reference  to  persecution,  the  author, 
while  regarding  the  overthrow  as  deserved,  yet  betrays 
no  exultation  over  it  or  hatred  of  Rome.  Pfleiderer  thinks 
this  belonged  to  the  little  book  and  assigns  it  to  the  time 
of  Caligula,  but  J.  Weiss  thinks  it  was  written  under  the 
sixth  emperor,  i.e.  Vespasian.  A  later  writer  represented 
the  destruction  of  Rome  as  due  to  the  alUance  of  the  beast, 
i.e.  Nero,  with  the  Parthians.  Probably  he  was  a  Jewish 
not  a  Christian  writer  who  saw  in  Rome's  overthrow 
God's  Judgment  on  the  destroyers  of  Jerusalem.  He 
describes  the  scarlet  woman  as  drunk  not  with  luxury 
and  immorality  but  with  the  blood  of  the  saints.  This 
would  suit  the  martyrdom  of  Christians  in  the  Neronian 
persecution,  only  Nero  was  himself  more  responsible  for  this 
than  Rome,  and  therefore  could  not  so  well  appear  as  its 
avenger  upon  Rome.  It  is  therefore  more  likely  that  the 
reference  is  to  the  Jews  who  had  perished  in  tiie  Jewish 
war,  especially  in  the  siege  and  sack  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  dark  days  that  followed.  This  writer  was  accord- 
ingly not  a  Christian  but  a  Jew  and  may  have  written 
under  Titus.  But  since  we  have  apparently  a  refer- 
ence to  the  return  of  Nero  from  hell  as  Antichrist,  a 
view  which  cannot  be  traced  till  towards  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  we  have  probably  to  postulate  a  third 
author  who  was  a  Christian  and  wrote  under  Domitian, 
out  of  experience  of  his  persecution.  It  is  he  who  repre- 
wemta  the  beast  as  making  war  on  the  Lamb  and  inserts 
the  references  to  '  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus  * 
(xvii.  6),  to  the  apostles  and  perhaps  prophets  in  xviii.  20-24. 
In  the  examination  of  this  chapter  we  have  already 
anticipated  to  some  extent  the  discussion  not  simply  of 
•tructure  but  of  date.    So  far  as  the  former  is  coDcemed, 


164      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ot 

the  most  important  point  is  that  we  apparently  have  to 
recognise  the  incorporation  of  documentary  material 
Jewish  in  origin.  Since  the  eleventh  chapter,  which 
opens  with  a  probably  Jewish  prophecy,  immediately 
follows  the  episode  of  the  eating  of  the  book,  it  is  a  natural 
inference  that  a  Jewish  apocalypse  begins  at  this  point 
or  perhaps  with  the  tenth  chapter.  The  date  of  this  seems 
to  be  fixed  as  a.d.  70,  when  the  Romans  were  besieging 
Jerusalem.  It  is  very  uncertain  how  much  this  apocalypse 
contained,  and  how  far  the  elements  of  which  it  was 
composed  were  themselves  ready  to  its  author's  hand. 
It  must  of  course  be  remembered  that  the  final  author  did 
not  leave  the  Jewish  sections  untouched ;  he  has  worked 
them  over  and  frequently  inserted  Christian  additions. 
Pfleiderer  thinks  the  little  book  contained  chs.  xi.-xiv., 
xvii.-xix.  J.  Weiss  finds  it  in  chs.  x.,  xi.  1-13,  xii.  1-6, 
14-17  (xiii.  1-7),  xv.-xix.,  xxi.  4-27.  He  considers  that  this 
was  a  literary  unity,  in  which  earlier  groups  of  apocalyptic 
matter  had  been  combined.  Nothing  definite  can  be 
affirmed  as  to  the  time  and  circumstances  of  some  of  the 
visions  employed,  but  the  author  put  them  together  in 
the  year  70  a.d.  in  the  belief  that  Jerusalem  itself  would 
not  be  saved,  but  only  the  Temple  and  the  worshippers  in 
its  court.  Von  Soden  thinks  that  the  Jewish  Apocalypse 
of  A.D,  70  extends  from  vi.  12  to  the  end  of  the  book,  with 
of  course  a  good  deal  of  Christian  redaction.  And  other 
attempts  have  been  made  to  reconstruct  it.  Within  our 
limits  no  discussion  is  possible.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  the  Jewish  element  is  so  considerable  as  these 
scholars  suppose.  It  is  most  clearly  discernible  in  chs. 
xi.,  xii.,  xvii.,  xviii.,  though  the  two  latter  as  already 
shown  are  almost  certainly  composite,  and  contain  a 
Jewish  section  of  later  date  than  the  main  Jewish  Apoca- 
Ij'pse.  It  is  also  not  improbable  that  ch.  xii.  is  itself 
composite,  though  the  analysts  are  by  no  means  agreed 
as  to  its  dismemberment. 


XV.]  THE  REVELATION  OF  JOHN  166 

But  the  Christian  sections  are  themselves  not  homo- 
geneous. It  has  akeady  been  pointed  out  that  the  refer- 
ences to  persecution  in  the  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches 
are  quite  different  in  character  from  those  in  later  portions 
of  the  book.  In  the  former  the  Jews  are  the  enemy,  in 
the  latter  the  Roman  Empire  with  its  insistence  on  the 
worship  of  the  Emperor,  to  which  multitudes  have  been 
sacrificed.  In  the  letters  the  condition  of  the  Churches 
suggests  no  serious  peril  from  the  government,  rather 
they  are  in  peril  from  their  own  shortcomings,  which  are 
of  a  type  we  do  not  expect  in  communities  harried  by  a  great 
tribulation.  The  tone  of  severity  in  which  they  are 
addressed  is  also  unsuitable  to  a  time  of  bitter  persecution. 
How  much  of  the  book  belongs  to  the  Apocalypse  which 
the  seven  letters  were  intended  to  introduce  is  most 
uncertain.  J.  Weiss  supposes  that  it  consisted  of  i.  4-6 
(7-8),  9-19,  ii.-vii.,  xi.,  xii.  7-12,  xiii.  11-18  (xiv.  1-5),  14-20, 
XX.  1-15,  xxi.  1-4,  xxii.  3-5,  xxii.  8ff.  (in  part).  Here 
again  space  permits  of  no  adequate  discussion  of  details, 
which  alone  could  warrant  a  conclusion.  It  must, 
however,  be  recognised  that,  although  earlier  sources  have 
been  employed,  the  author  has  contrived  to  impart  a  real 
unity  to  the  completed  work  and  has  not  merely  strung 
earlier  compositions  together.  He  has  made  it  an  artistic 
whole  characterised  by  considerable  uniformity  of  style 
and  language. 

While  some  elements  in  the  book  must  be  earlier  than 
A.D.  70,  the  Apocalypse  as  it  stands  must  be  later.  It 
employs  the  legend  of  the  returning  Nero,  not  simply 
m  its  older  form  of  a  return  from  the  Parthians  but  in  its 
later  form  of  a  return  from  hell.  So  far  as  can  be  made 
out,  this  legend  does  not  appear  much  before  the  close  of 
the  first  century.  The  enumeration  of  emperors  carries 
us  down  at  least  to  Titus  and  possibly  to  Domitian.  The 
references  to  persecution,  and  indeed  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  book  in  its  final  form,  point  strongly  to  Domitian'f 


166      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca. 

reign.  The  external  evidence  is  also  very  cogent  for  » 
date  in  the  time  of  Domitian.  Irenaeus  referring  to  the 
Apocalypse  says  '  it  was  seen  no  such  long  time  ago,  but 
almost  in  our  own  generation  at  the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Domitian  '  (v.  3).  The  tradition  as  to  Domitian  is  not 
uncontradicted,  but  as  Hort  says,  if  external  evidence  alone 
could  decide,  there  would  be  a  clear  preponderance  for 
Domitian.  It  is  true  that  external  evidence  does  not 
settle  the  question,  but  in  this  case  it  coincides  with  the 
indications  of  internal  evidence.  The  phenomena  which 
point  to  a  Neronian  date  or  a  date  at  the  beginning  of 
Vespasian's  reign  are  real,  but  they  may  be  satisfied  by 
the  recognition  that  the  book  includes  a  large  element 
dating  from  the  period  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
A  suggestion  has  been  made  by  Reinach,  that  vi.  6  fixes  the 
year  93  a.d.  as  the  date  of  the  Apocalypse.  In  92  Domitian 
forbade  the  cultivation  of  the  vine  in  the  provinces,  really 
as  a  protective  measure  for  Italy,  but  under  the  pretext 
of  encouraging  grain  and  reducing  drunkenness.  In  93 
he  reversed  this,  so  that  the  author  apprehended  that 
grain  would  be  scarce  and  wine  abundant.  The  state  of 
things  presupposed  in  the  passage  is  so  peculiar  that 
some  definite  incident  may  well  have  suggested  this 
vision.  On  the  other  hand,  the  edict  does  not  account 
for  the  reference  to  oil. 

As  early  as  Justin  Martyr  the  Apocalypse  was  attri- 
buted to  the  apostle  John.  Irenaeus  assigns  both  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  John  a  disciple  of 
the  Lord,  apparently  meaning  the  apostle  John,  and 
Hippolytus,  TertuUian  and  Origen  affirm  apostolic  author- 
ship. On  the  other  hand,  the  Alogi  rejected  not  only  the 
Gospel  but  the  Apocalypse,  ascribing  it  to  Cerinthus, 
probably  in  each  case  on  doctrinal  groimds.  Their 
attitude  was  shared  by  Caius  of  Rome  at  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century.  Probably  no  importance  should  be 
attached  to  these  opinions,  they  were  based  on  theological 


XT.]  THE  EBVELATION  OP  JOHN  167 

prejudices,  not  on  oritioal  considerations.  Much  more 
interest  attaches  to  the  suggestion  made  by  Dionysins  of 
Alexandria.  No  doubt  his  discussion  of  the  question  was 
prompted  by  his  disUke  of  millenarianism  and  his  desire 
to  deprive  it  of  apostolic  endorsement.  But  his  internal 
criticism  of  the  book  was  very  able,  and  he  called  attention 
to  phenomena  which  make  it  difficult  to  believe  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse  could  come  from  the 
same  author.  Since  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  Gospel 
was  assumed  without  question  by  Dionysius,  he  had  to 
suggest  that  the  Revelation  was  the  work  of  another  John. 
This  he  argues  cannot  have  been  John  Mark  but  some 
other  John,  and  he  corroborates  his  conjecture  by 
the  story  that  in  Ephesus  there  were  two  tombs  of  John. 
Eusebius  completes  his  criticism  by  a  reference  to  the  two 
Johns  mentioned  by  Papias,  and  argues  that  if  the  apostolic 
authorship  of  the  Apocalypse  is  to  be  denied  the  work 
should  be  attributed  to  the  presbyter. 

Leaving  aside  for  the  present  the  problem  raised  by 
Dionysius  and  looking  at  the  Apocalypse  by  itself,  there  is 
probably  no  valid  reason  to  doubt  that  the  author  really 
bore  the  name  of  John.  It  is  true  that  apocalypses  are 
usually  pseudonymous  writings,  and  the  fact  that  the 
author  does  not  give  himself  out  as  an  ancient  worthy 
is  not  decisive  against  the  conclusion  that  our  book  con- 
forms to  the  rule  of  its  class,  for  a  Jewish  apocalypse  can 
hardly  be  the  measure  of  a  Christian  apocalypse  in  this 
respect.  An  apostle  would  be  quite  as  naturally  chosen 
as  Enoch  or  Baruch.  But  if  the  book  were  pseudonymous, 
the  author  would  probably  have  claimed  explicitly  to  be 
an  apostle,  whereas  he  contents  himself  with  the  bare 
name  of  John.  We  need  not  doubt  tiiat  the  author  who 
gives  himself  out  as  John  really  bore  that  name,  lived  in 
Asia,  and  received  his  vision  at  Patmos.  It  is  important 
to  remember  that  it  is  not  with  apocalypse  pure  and  simple 
that  we  have  to  deal.    The  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches 


168      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

are  certainly  not  apocalyptic  fictions  dealing  with 
fictitious  circumstances,  and  the  same  conclusion  must 
be  adopted  with  reference  to  the  claim  to  authorship  which 
is  inseparably  united  with  them.  It  must,  however, 
be  pointed  out  that  if  the  book  is  composite  the  claim  to 
Johannine  authorship  can  be  established  only  for  a  portion 
of  the  book,  unless  we  can  identify  the  author  of  the  seven 
letters  and  the  related  sections  with  the  final  editor. 
This,  however,  is  very  improbable.  But  while  we  may 
confidently  accept  partial  Johannine  authorship,  this 
gives  us  no  warrant  for  identifying  the  prophet  John  with 
the  apostle.  The  author  speaks  as  a  prophet  telling  the 
message  of  the  glorified  Christ,  and  the  tone  of  authority 
must  not  be  held  to  prove  his  apostoUc  position. 

It  is  held  by  many  that  the  identification  with  the 
apostle  is  excluded  by  the  absence  of  reminiscences  of  the 
author's  earUer  intercourse  with  Jesus  during  His  earthly 
career  and  by  the  objective  reference  to  the  twelve  apostles 
of  the  Lamb.  The  Tiibingen  critics,  we  do  well  to  remem- 
ber, found  no  difficulty  in  holding  the  apostolic  authorship 
of  the  whole  book  in  spite  of  these  objections  and  in  spite 
of  its  very  advanced  Christology.  And  probably  in  this 
respect  their  Judgment  was  sounder  than  that  of  their 
successors.  The  same  objection  apart  from  the  references 
to  the  twelve  apostles  would  he,  though  in  a  mitigated 
form,  against  the  identification  with  the  presbyter  if  he 
was  acquainted  with  Jesus,  especially  if  he  was  the  beloved 
disciple. 

It  was  formerly  thought  by  many  scholars  to  be  possible 
to  identify  the  author  of  the  Apocalypse  with  the  author 
of  the  Gospel,  the  wide  divergences  between  them  being 
explained  by  the  interval  that  was  supposed  to  separate 
them.  It  is  extremely  questionable,  however,  whether 
any  lapse  of  time  would  account  for  the  development 
from  one  to  the  other,  especially  as  the  apostle  cannot 
well  have  been  less  than  fifty  at  the  earUest  date  to  which 


XT.)  THE  EEVELATION  OF  JOHN  169 

fche  Apocalypse  could  be  assigned.  And  the  same  objec- 
tion would  hold  if  we  ascribed  all  the  works  to  tiie 
presbyter.  If,  however,  we  adopt  the  Domitian  date  for 
the  Apocaljrpse,  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  it  was 
written  by  the  author  of  the  Gospel  is  probably  insuperable, 
though  it  must  be  remembered  that  Hamack  assigns  all 
the  Johannine  literature  to  the  presbyter.  It  is  no  doubt 
the  case  that  there  is  a  very  close  connexion  both  in 
vocabulary  and  in  thought  between  the  Apocalypse  and 
the  other  Johannine  writings.  But  these  are  more  than 
balanced  by  the  difEerences.  On  this  it  may  be  enough  to 
quote  the  words  of  Hort,  who  asserted  the  unity  of  author- 
ship and  the  early  date  for  the  Apocalj^se.  His  con- 
clusion is  made  all  the  more  weighty  by  his  protest  against 
exaggerating  the  difficulties  which  immediately  precedes. 
'  It  is,  however,  true  that  without  the  long  lapse  of  time 
and  the  change  made  by  the  Fall  of  Jerusalem  the  transition 
cannot  be  accounted  for.  Thus  date  and  authorship  do 
hang  together.  It  would  be  easier  to  beUeve  that  the 
Apocalypse  was  written  by  an  unknown  John  than  that 
both  books  belong  alike  to  St.  John's  extreme  old  age.* 
We  cannot  carry  the  discussion  further  without  reference 
to  the  other  Johannine  Uterature.  Without  deferring  it 
till  the  critical  problems  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
Epistles  have  been  considered,  it  may  be  said  that,  accept- 
ing the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  we  should 
probably  assign  the  Apocalypse  to  the  presbyter  unless 
we  are  willing  to  assume  the  existence  of  a  third  John 
otherwiie  unknown  to  na. 


170     INTB0DUC5TI0N  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [<a. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  EPISTLES  OP  JOHN 

Tedb  First  Epistle  is  anonymous,  but  from  the  time  cf 
Irenaeus,  who  is  the  first  to  mention  it  by  name,  it  was 
regarded  in  the  ancient  Church  as  the  work  of  John.  It 
is  quoted  as  such  not  only  by  Irenaeus  but  by  Tertullian, 
Gement  of  Alexandria,  and  Origen.  It  is  also  assigned  to 
him  in  the  Muratorian  Canon.  Polycarp  probably  quotes 
it  though  this  is  disputed,  and  we  learn  from  Eusebius 
that  Papias  employed  it.  Polycarp  and  Papias  are  of 
course  authorities  simply  for  the  early  date,  not  for  the 
authorship.  The  prevailing  view  even  among  modem 
critics  has  been  that  the  Epistle  is  from  the  same  hand 
as  the  Fourth  Grospel.  This  has  been  denied  by  some 
eminent  scholars,  for  example  Holtzmann,  Pfleiderer, 
Schmiedel  and  Martineau.  Wellhausen  put  forward 
the  suggestion  in  his  first  work  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  that 
the  interpolator  of  John  xv.-xvii.  might  not  improbably 
be  identical  with  the  author  of  the  Epistle.  The  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  would  involve  too  much  detail, 
but  in  spite  of  differences  between  the  Epistle  and  the 
Gospel,  which  so  far  as  they  are  not  fanciful  are  accounted 
for  by  difference  of  subject-matter  and  aim,  and  possibly 
by  an  interval  of  time,  the  links  of  connexion  are  so 
numerous  and  unstudied,  the  peculiar  Johannine  style 
so  inimitable,  that  it  is  hypercriticism  to  deny  the  identity 
of  authorship.  The  question  of  authorship  therefore 
need  not  be  independently  discussed;  it  is  sufficient  to 


XVI.J  THE  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN  171 

remind  ourselves  that  the  author  appears  to  claim  that  he 
had  known  the  incarnate  Christ  during  His  earthly  life. 

The  date  of  the  work  cannot  be  determined  witii  any 
precision.  The  external  testimony  hardly  permits  us  to 
descend  below  125  a.d.,  but  it  is  far  more  probable  that 
we  should  take  110  a.d.  as  the  lower  limit.  It  is  often 
said  that  a  second  century  date  must  be  adopted  on 
account  of  the  false  teaching  which  it  attacks.  This  is 
alleged  to  be  second-century  Gnosticism.  The  condition 
of  things  reflected  in  the  Epistle  is  as  follows.  The  false 
teaching  is  not  a  novelty.  Antichrist  is  not  one  but  many, 
and  already  at  work  in  the  world  while  the  author  writes. 
Many  false  prophets  have  gone  out  into  the  world.  The 
representatives  of  the  tendencies  attacked  had  belonged 
to  the  Christian  communities.  They  have  left  them, 
however,  because  they  were  not  in  spiritual  sympathy 
with  the  members  of  those  communities.  The  members 
are  themselves  untouched  by  the  contamination.  In 
virtue  of  the  anointing  spirit  they  know  all  things  and 
do  not  need  to  be  taught  the  truth.  But  there  are  those 
who  would  lead  them  astray,  and  much  of  the  writer's 
letter  is  a  warning  and  appeal  intended  to  guard  them 
against  these  dangers.  Even  in  the  Christian  congrega- 
tion there  was  a  danger  lest  the  spirit  of  Antichrist  should 
manifest  itself  in  the  meetings,  hence  it  was  necessary  to 
subject  the  spirits  to  a  test.  Heresy  in  doctrine  was  com- 
bined with  immorality  in  conduct.  The  heresy  touched 
especially  the  Person  of  Christ.  It  denied  the  Son,  denied 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  It  confessed  not  [or  dissolved] 
Jesus.  It  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  in  the  flesh. 
Against  it  the  author  strongly  affirms  the  real  humanity 
of  the  Logos  as  attested  by  the  evidence  of  the  physical 
senses,  i.  1-3.  The  heresy  was  accordingly  a  form  of 
Docetism  similar  to  that  attacked  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles. 
But  some  of  the  expressions  suggest  another  form  of 
Christology,  the  denial  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.    Thif 


172      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ja 

has  of  course  no  reference  to  Judaism,  but  suggests  the 
distinction  made  by  some  Gnostics  between  the  man  Jesus 
and  the  aeon  Christ.  In  that  case  the  reading  '  dissolveth 
Jesus'  would,  whether  textually  correct  or  not,  give  the 
right  sense. 

On  the  moral  side  they  professed  sinlessness,  but  were 
antinomians  who  walked  in  darkness  while  they  pro- 
fessed to  be  in  the  light,  claimed  the  knawledge  of  God 
while  they  failed  to  keep  His  commandinents.  Hatred 
of  one's  brother  is  especially  singled  out  for  condemnation. 
They  seem  to  have  made  similar  claims  as  the  hbertine 
Gnostics.  They  knew  God,  had  a  special  spiritual  illu- 
mination, which  rendered  sin  something  out  of  the  question 
for  them,  so  that  conduct  became  a  matter  of  complete 
moral  indifference.  We  find  the  combination  of  this  with 
a  false  Christology  among  the  Gnostics.  There  is  no 
necessity  to  descend  into  the  second  century  for  this 
teaching,  though  it  has  a  close  parallel  in  Ignatius. 
Gnosticism  was  originally  independent  of  Christianity 
and  came  into  existence  before  it.  It  probably  touched 
the  Christian  Church  long  before  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  even  though  we  may  Justifiably  refuse  to 
recognise  it  in  the  heresy  attacked  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians.  If  the  Epistle  of  Jude  belongs  to  the  first 
century,  we  have  a  parallel  in  it  to  some  features  which 
recur  in  our  Epistle.  The  tendencies  attacked  in  the 
apocalyptic  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  present  much  that 
is  similar,  though  we  have  no  indication  of  false  teaching 
as  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  But  we  read  of  teachers  who 
teach  immorality  and  to  eat  things  sacrificed  to  idols; 
they  profess  to  know  the  deep  things  of  Satan.  This  is  a 
kind  of  libertine  Gnosticism,  which  is  in  some  cases  at 
work  in  the  Churches  themselves.  If  the  seven  letters 
belong  to  the  final  stratum  of  the  Revelation,  they  are 
evidence  simply  for  the  reign  of  Domitian.  But  more 
probably  they  are  a  good  deal  earlier,  in  which  case  the 


xvl]  the  epistles  OF  JOHN  173 

development  reflected  in  the  First  Epistle  may  easily  have 
been  reached  well  before  the  close  of  the  first  century. 
Naturally  this  does  not  demand  but  only  permit  a  first- 
century  date.  It  is  at  any  rate  noteworthy  that  no 
reference  is  made  to  the  great  Gnostic  systems.  The 
letter  was  probably  written  from  Ephesus,  perhaps  to 
accompany  the  Fourth  Gospel,  though  it  is  more  likely 
that  the  two  works  were  not  written  at  the  same  time, 
especially  as  they  do  not  seem  to  be  addressed  to  the  same 
conditions  or  designed  to  correct  the  same  errors. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  John  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  a 
private  letter.  According  to  the  English  version  it  is 
addressed  *  to  the  elect  lady,'  and  this  is  probably  the 
correct  translation,  though  either  of  the  two  Greek  words 
might  be  taken  and  have  been  taken  as  a  proper  name, 
and  we  might  translate  '  to  the  elect  Kyria  *  or  *  to  the 
lady  Eklekte.'  In  the  latter  case  it  is  also  possible  to 
take  the  term  '  lady '  as  a  term  of  endearment  rather 
than  of  dignity.  It  is  nevertheless  improbable  that  either 
of  the  words  is  a  proper  name.  If  we  take  Eklekte  as  a 
proper  name,  we  are  confronted  by  the  difficulty  that  in 
V.  13  it  is  also  applied  to  her  sister,  and  to  have  two  sisters 
with  the  same  name  is  out  of  the  question.  Kyria  is  used 
as  a  proper  name,  but  we  should  have  expected  rather 
different  Greek  if  this  had  been  intended.  The  tendency 
of  recent  writers  is  to  regard  the  letter  as  addressed  to  a 
Church,  though  several,  for  example  Salmond,  J.  Rendel 
Harris,  and  Hamack  take  it  to  be  a  private  letter. 
The  paralleUsm  with  the  third  letter,  which  is  unques- 
tionably addressed  to  an  individual,  favours  a  similar 
interpretation  here,  which  is  also  the  more  natural  mean- 
ing of  the  expression.  The  contents  of  the  letter,  how- 
ever, support  the  alternative  view.  The  doctrinal  tenor 
of.  the  Epistle  is  more  appropriate  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  a  Church.    The  references  to  the  lady's  childr^i  also 


174      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oa 

favour  this  view.  That  the  lady  and  her  children  are 
loved  by  all  who  know  the  truth  would  be  hyperbolical 
if  an  individual  were  intended.  The  greeting  from  '  the 
children  of  thine  elect  sister '  would  be  very  strange, 
if  the  meaning  was  that  the  children  sent  a  greeting 
to  their  aunt.  We  should  have  expected  '  thine  elect 
sister  and  her  children  salute  thee.'  It  is  much  more 
natural  if  the  elect  sister  and  the  children  are  the  Church 
and  its  members.  In  that  case  there  is  no  material  dis- 
tinction between  the  mother  and  the  children.  The 
omission  of  the  mother  from  the  greeting  would  on  the 
other  interpretation  be  hard  to  account  for. 

Accepting  this  interpretation,  we  may  ask  what  Church 
is  intended.  If  we  suppose  that  the  Epistle  is  a  free 
composition  without  an  actual  situation  for  its  back- 
ground, we  might  suppose  that  it  was  a  CathoUc  Epistle 
addressed  to  the  Church  generally.  If,  however,  we 
reject  this  conception  of  the  letter,  we  are  obliged  by  «.  13 
to  accept  the  view  that  an  individual  Church  is  intended. 
The  statement  that  the  elect  lady  is  greeted  by  her  elect 
sister  is  incompatible  with  a  Catholic  destination  of  the 
Epistle;  it  could  only  mean  that  one  Church  greets 
another.  In  that  case  the  elect  sister  may  possibly  be 
identijSed  with  the  Church  in  Ephesus,  where  the  author 
presumably  was  writing.  It  is  accordingly  probable  that 
the  elect  lady  should  be  identified  with  one  of  the  Churches 
of  Asia,  perhaps  with  Pergamum,  as  Findlay  has  suggested. 

The  Third  Epistle  is  addressed  not  to  a  Church  but  to 
an  individual,  Gaius.  The  affinities  with  the  Second 
Epistle  are  so  close  that  we  may  assume  that  it  was  written 
by  the  same  author  and  in  all  probabihty  at  the  same 
time.  In  that  case  it  is  possible  that  the  letters  were  sent 
to  the  same  destination.  It  is  a  plausible  suggestion  that 
the  letter  referred  to  in  v.  9  is  the  Second  Epistle,  and 
that  the  writer  sends  this  letter  to  Gaius  to  guard  against 
the  suppression  of  his  letter  to  the  Church  by  Diotrepi]«i. 


XVI.]  THE  EPISTLES  OF  JOHN  176 

On  the  other  hand,  the  happy  relations  with  the  Oiorch 
which  seem  to  be  reflected  in  the  Second  Epistle  are  not 
quite  what  we  should  gather  to  have  prevailed  where 
Diotrephes  was  so  powerful. 

It  has  been  generally  held  that  the  two  letters  are  by  the 
author  of  the  First  Epistle  and  the  Gospel.  The  Johannine 
phraseology  and  point  of  view  are  very  marked  especially 
in  the  Second  Epistle,  though  it  must  be  admitted  that 
there  are  differences  on  which,  however,  in  the  case  of 
such  brief  and  informal  letters  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  lay  too  much  stress.  In  a  very  important  and  thorough 
study  of  the  Third  Epistle,  Hamack,  who  accepts  the  unity 
of  authorship  of  all  five  Johannine  writings,  has  suggested 
that  in  Diotrephes  we  are  to  see  the  first  monarchical 
bishop.  He  objects  to  the  supervision  exercised  by  the 
elder  over  the  local  Churches,  which  belongs  to  the  old 
system  of  patriarchal  control  of  a  whole  province,  and 
especially  to  the  way  in  which  the  author  interferes  by  hia 
agents  with  the  autonomy  of  the  Churches.  It  is  clear 
that  Diotrephes  not  only  refused  to  receive  the  presbyter's 
emissaries  himself,  but  was  in  a  position  to  expel  from 
the  Church  those  who  gave  them  hospitality.  That  his 
motive  was  to  assert  local  independence  as  against  central- 
ised administration,  is  of  course  possible,  as  the  author 
asserts  that  personal  ambition  was  the  mainspring  of  hia 
action.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  the  root  of  the  differ- 
ence may  have  been  doctrinal  rather  than  ecclesiastical. 
This  would  gain  in  probability  if  we  could  suppose  that 
the  Second  Epistle  was  written  to  the  Church  in  which 
Diotrephes  was  an  ofiicer.  In  that  case,  however,  we 
should  have  expected  the  writer  to  stigmatise  Diotrephes 
as  a  heretic  and  an  antichrist,  whereas  he  hints  nothing 
of  the  kind  against  him.  If  the  dispute  was  purely 
ecclesiastical,  Hamack's  suggestion  may  be  correct,  though 
it  would  be  possible  to  reverse  the  relation  and  suppose 
that  Diotrephes  was  fighting  for  the  old  independence  ol 


176      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oh. 

the  local  Churches  against  the  presbyter's  attempt  to  bring 
them  under  his  personal  control.  There  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  with  Schwartz  that  the  original  letters  were 
written  by  a  presbyter  who  gave  his  name,  and  that  the 
name  was  subsequently  struck  out  in  order  to  suggest  that 
they  were  written  by  the  famous  presbyter  John.  It 
would  be  more  reasonable  to  suppose  with  Jiilicher  that 
the  letters  were  originally  pseudonymous  and  designed 
to  secure  apostolic  authority  for  the  author's  own  ideas. 
There  is  no  groimd,  however,  for  suspecting  the  author 
of  sailing  under  a  false  flag.  Besides,  for  two  such  iusignifi- 
cant  compositions  such  an  explanation  is  altogether  too 
artificial.  The  self-designation  of  the  author  favours 
the  view  tiiat  they  were  written  by  the  presbyter  John. 


XVII.J  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  177 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN 

The  External  Evidence, 

It  is  needless  to  seek  for  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the 
Gospel  and  its  ascription  to  the  apostle  John  after  the 
time  of  Irenaeus.  It  is  not  disputed  that  he  knew  and 
used  all  of  our  Gospels  and  regarded  them  as  authoritative. 
In  fact  he  asserts  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  there  cannot 
be  either  more  or  fewer  Gospels  than  four.  The  fantastic 
arguments  by  which  he  proves  this  view  speak  rather  for 
than  against  the  strength  of  his  independent  conviction 
that  our  four  Gospels  and  those  Gospels  alone  were 
canonical.  It  might  be  fairly  inferred  that  these  Gospels 
stood  out  so  conspicuously  in  a  class  by  themselves,  that 
Irenaeus  found  it  hard  to  imagine  the  Church  without 
them.  C.  Taylor  thinks  that  for  his  view  that  the  four 
Grospels  are  tJie  four  pillars  on  which  the  Church  rests, 
Irenaeus  is  indebted  to  Hennas,  who  represents  the  Church 
as  sitting  on  a  seat  with  four  feet.  If  this  were  so,  it  would 
carry  back  not  only  the  existence  but  the  unique  authority 
of  the  four  Gospels  to  155  at  the  latest.  But  not  much 
weight  can  be  laid  on  this  theory.  The  testimony  of 
Irenaeus  is  important  in  several  ways.  He  had  lived  as  a 
youth  in  Asia  Minor,  where  he  was  acquainted  with 
Polycarp,  and  later  he  Hved  in  Rome  and  Gaul.  He  was 
therefore  in  a  position  to  know  the  view  of  the  Churches 
in  these  widely  separated  districts.    He  appeals  to  the 

M 


178      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oh. 

Fourth  Gospel  as  John's  with  a  triumphant  certainty, 
betraying  no  consciousness  that  on  this  point  he  could  be 
successfully  challenged.  His  contemporary  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  and  his  somewhat  junior  contemporaries,  Clement 
of  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  Tertullian  in  Carthage,  and 
Hippolytus  in  Rome,  occupy  a  similar  position.  This 
testifies  to  a  full  recognition  of  the  Gospel  throughout 
the  Church  before  the  close  of  the  second  century.  And 
it  is  important  to  remember  that  this  involves  a  fairly 
long  previous  history.  Had  the  Gospel  been  written  only 
a  short  time  before,  it  could  hardly  have  been  widely 
accepted  as  the  work  of  the  apostle  John,  for  the  question 
would  naturally  have  been  pressed  in  very  large  circles, 
How  is  it  that  we  only  hear  of  this  book  now,  when  John 
has  been  dead  so  many  years  ? 

But  testimony  to  the  Johannine  authorship  goes  back 
to  a  date  earlier  than  Irenaeus.  The  Muratorian  Canon, 
which  is  possibly  as  early  as  about  170  a.d.,  not  only  asserts 
that  John,  whom  it  describes  as  one  of  the  disciples,  wrote 
the  Gospel  but  gives  a  detailed  tradition  as  to  its  origin. 
The  recent  discovery  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron  has  proved 
what  had  been  contested,  though  generally  admitted  by 
impartial  critics,  that  Tatian  used  our  four  Gospels  in  iia 
composition.  This  means,  not  merely  that  these  Gospels 
were  in  existence,  but  that  they  were  marked  o£E  from  all 
other  Gospels  and  set  in  a  class  by  themselves.  The  date 
of  the  work  is  uncertain ;  it  may  be  fixed  with  some  pro- 
bability about  170  A.D.  It  has  even  been  argued  that  this 
was  not  the  earliest  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  since  some 
early  writings  exhibit  what  seems  to  be  a  blending  from 
different  Gospels  in  their  quotations.  But  this  theory 
is  uncertain  in  itself,  and  obviously  nothing  can  be  built  on 
it.  Probably  a  Uttle  later  than  Tatian,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  published  a  Harmony  of  the  Grospels. 

Tatian  was  a  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr.  Few  questions  in 
New  Testament  criticism  have  been  more  hotly  and  keenly 


xvn.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  179 

debated  than  the  question  whether  Justin  used  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  The  afl&nnative  view  has  been  very  strongly 
maintained  not  only  by  Lightfoot,  Westcott  and  Sanday, 
but  especially  by  Ezra  Abbot  and  James  Drummond, 
and  has  been  admitted  by  Hilgenfeld,  Keim,  Wemle  and 
others  who  reject  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel. 
Loisy  says  his  dependence  on  the  Fourth  Gospel  cannot  be 
denied,  but  he  never  cites  it  formally.  He  thinks  with 
several  other  scholars  that  he  used  the  Gospel  of  Peter 
(but  on  this  see  Drummond,  pp.  151-155).  On  the  othei 
hand  E.  A.  Abbott  has  recently  in  the  article  'Gospels* 
in  the  Encyclopaedia  Bihlica,  after  an  elaborate  examination 
of  the  evidence,  reaffirmed  his  negative  conclusion.  He 
argues  that  where  Justin  seems  to  be  alluding  to  John, 
he  is  really  alluding  to  the  Old  Testament  or  to  Barnabas, 
or  to  some  Christian  tradition  distinct  from  and  often 
earher  than  John ;  further,  that  when  he  teaches  what  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  he  supports  it  not  by 
what  can  easily  be  found  in  that  Gospel,  but  by  what  can 
hardly,  with  any  show  of  reason,  be  foimd  in  the  Three, 
and  lastly  that  his  Logos  doctrine  differs  from  that  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  He  concludes  either  that  Justin  did  not 
know  the  Gospel,  or  that  more  probably  he  knew  it  but 
regarded  it  with  suspicion,  partly  because  it  seemed  to 
him  to  contradict  his  favourite  Gospel,  Luke,  partly 
because  the  Valentioians  were  beginning  to  use  it. 
Schmiedel  in  the  article  '  John  the  Son  of  Zebedee,'  after 
pointing  out  that  while  Justin  has  more  than  one  hundred 
quotations  from  the  Synoptists,  he  has  only  three  which 
offer  points  of  contact  with  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  even 
these  may  possibly  have  come  from  another  source,  which 
the  evangehst  also  may  have  used,  proceeds  :  '  Yet,  even 
apart  from  this,  we  cannot  fail  to  recognise  that  the 
Fourth  Gospel  was  by  no  means  on  the  same  plane  with  the 
synoptics  in  Justin's  eyes,  and  that  his  employment  of 
it  is  not  only  more  sparing  but  also  more  circomspeck 


180     INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [aa 

This  is  all  the  more  remarkable  since  Justin  certainly 
champions  one  of  its  leading  conceptions  (the  Logos  idea), 
lays  great  weight  upon  the  "  Memorabilia  of  the  Apostles,*' 
and  expressly  designates  the  Apocalypse  as  a  work  of 
the  Apostle.'  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  we 
have  only  apologetic  treatises  from  Justin,  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel  may  have  seemed  less  suitable  to  this  purpose.  (On 
the  argument  from  silence  see  especially  Drummond, 
pp.  167,  158.) 

The  description  of  the  style  of  Jesus  given  by  Justin  is 
sometimes  said  {e.g.  by  Pfleiderer)  to  look  like  a  direct 
repudiation  of  the  long  dialectical  speeches  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  When  correctly  translated  the  passage  runs, 
'  Brief  and  concise  sayings  have  proceeded  from  Him ; 
for  He  was  not  a  sophist,  but  His  word  was  a  power  of  God.' 
This  does  not  mean  that  His  sayings  were  exclusively 
brief  utterances,  but  rather  that  this  was  a  characteristic 
form  of  utterance.  As  Drummond  points  out,  the 
Johannine  discourses  are  largely  made  up  of  such  sayings, 
while  if  we  were  to  press  the  description  as  covering  all 
Christ's  teaching  it  would  exclude  the  longer  parables  in 
the  Synoptists. 

Papias  the  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia  is  said  by 
Eusebius  to  have  '  used  testimonies  from  the  former 
Epistle  of  John.'  Usually  this  has  been  regarded  as 
practically  equivalent  to  a  recognition  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  Thus  E.  A.  Abbott  admits  that  he  quoted  from 
1  John,  which  was  written  by  the  author  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  But  since  some  scholars  deny  that  the  Epistle 
is  from  the  hand  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  we  cannot 
appeal  to  this  statement  of  Eusebius  as  evidence  for  Papias' 
knowledge  of  the  Fourth  Grospel  so  confidently  as  if  the 
composition  by  the  same  author  were  undisputed.  It 
has,  however,  been  argued  that  Papias  cannot  have 
mentioned  either  Luke  or  John,  since  otherwise  Eusebius, 
who  quotes  bis  account  of  the  origin  of  Matthew's  Logia 


xvit.l  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  181 

»nd  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  would  have  referred  to  his  accoimt 
of  Luke  and  John.  But,  as  Lightfoot  convincingly  proved, 
this  argument  from  the  silence  of  Eusebius  is  not  valid. 
He  promises  that  if  any  writer  has  anything  of  interest 
to  relate  as  to  the  origin  of  undisputed  books  he  will 
tell  it,  while  he  will  mention  the  mere  use  of  disputed 
books.  Since  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  an  undisputed  book, 
we  are  not  to  expect  Eusebius  to  mention  quotations  from 
it,  or  use  of  it,  but  only  interesting  circumstances  connected 
with  it.  We  may  infer  then  that  Papias  told  nothing 
which  seemed  to  Eusebius  of  interest  as  to  the  origin  of 
this  Gospel,  but  not  that  he  did  not  quote  it  or  refer  to  it. 
This  double  inference  is  Justified  by  the  general  practice 
of  Eusebius.  He  often  fails  to  mention  the  use  by  early 
writers  of  New  Testament  books  undisputed  in  his  day, 
though  we  have  actual  references  to  them,  often  very 
numerous,  in  their  own  writings. 

It  is  in  fact  now  freely  admitted  by  some  scholars,  who 
entirely  reject  the  Johannine  authorship,  that  Papias 
knew  the  Fourth  Gospel.  E.  Schwartz  considers  that  the 
statements  made  by  Papias  as  to  the  origin  of  Mark  and 
Matthew  were  intended  to  emphasise  their  inferiority  to 
John.  Mark  embodies  Peter's  preaching,  but  he  gives  it 
at  second  hand  and  not  in  order,  while  Matthew's  Gospel 
was  written  in  Hebrew  and  was  now  accessible  only  in 
poor  translations.  This  depreciatory  estimate  Schwartz 
says  must  have  been  in  contrast  to  some  more  satisfactory 
work,  since  Papias  would  not  accept  the  Gnostic  principle 
of  the  insufficiency  of  the  written  tradition.  This  more 
satisfactory  work  cannot  have  been  Luke;  probably 
Eusebius  preferred  not  to  reproduce  Papias'  judgment 
on  it.  Accordingly  it  must  have  been  John.  In  harmony 
with  this  we  have  another  statement  attributed  to  Papias 
and  often  set  aside  as  absurd,  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was 
manifested  and  given  to  the  Churches  by  John  while  he 
was  still  in  the  body.    The  point  of  this  would  be  that 


182      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oa 

while  Mark  wrote  after  Peter's  death,  and  Matthew's 
Gospel  was  accessible  not  in  the  original  but  only  in  poor 
translations  made  by  others,  the  Gospel  of  John  was 
communicated  by  the  apostle  himself  in  his  lifetime  to 
the  Churches  for  ofl&cial  use.  But  it  is  very  unlikely  that 
Schwartz  is  right  in  thinking  that  Papias  called  John 
'  the  theologian '  as  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Even  if  the  extract  referring  to  his  death  ftt  the  hands 
of  the  Jews  were  genuine  in  the  main,  it  is  unlikely  that 
this  description  of  him  is  due  to  Papias. 

The  date  at  which  Papias  composed  his  work  is  un- 
certain. Kriiger  places  it  as  early  as  the  first  decade 
of  the  second  century.  E.  A.  Abbott  gives  the  date 
115-130.  On  the  basis  of  a  fragment  recently  published 
according  to  which  his  work  referred  to  people  who  had 
been  raised  by  Christ  and  survived  till  the  reign  of 
Hadrian,  Hamack,  followed  by  Schmiedel,  argues  that 
his  book  caimot  have  been  written  earUer  than  between 
140  and  160,  since  Hadrian's  reign  was  117-138.  If  it  is 
so  late  as  that  the  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  if  it  could  be 
established,  would  not  prove  very  much,  unless  we  could 
show  that  Papias  was  in  an  exceptional  position  for 
knowing  the  facts.  This  would  be  so  if,  as  Irenaeus 
states,  he  was  a  hearer  of  John.  But  scholars  generally 
are  agreed  that  Eusebius  was  correct  in  the  inference  he 
drew  from  Papias'  own  language  that  he  was  not  person- 
ally acquainted  with  John.  It  is  very  uncertain,  however, 
if  the  fragment  comes  from  Papias.  Schwartz  thinks 
it  does  not,  and  Bousset  agrees  with  him ;  so  also  J.  V. 
Bartlet  and  Sanday. 

Critics  are  also  divided  as  to  the  use  of  the  Gospel  by 
Polycarp  and  Ignatius.  The  evidence  as  to  the  former  is 
inconcLisive,  but  from  so  brief  a  composition  as  his  letter 
negative  conclusions  such  as  those  of  Pfleiderer  cannot 
safely  be  drawn.  It  is  generally  allowed  that  the  Epistle 
of  Polycarp  shows  a  knowledge  of  1  John  iv.  2,  3.    But 


xvil]  the  GM3SPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  183 

this  is  denied  by  Schmiedel,  and  several  scholars  think 
that  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  is  wholly  or  in  part  spurious, 
and  even  if  genuine  need  not  have  been  written  so  early 
as  the  reign  of  Trajan  (98-117)  to  which  it  is  usually 
assigned.  It  is  beyond  question  that  Irenaeus  confidently 
attributed  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  John  the  Apostle.  In 
view  of  his  own  definite  statements  it  becomes  very  diffi- 
cult to  believe  that  in  so  doing  he  was  not  resting  on 
Polycarp's  statement.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  asserts 
that  Polycarp's  relation  of  Christ's  life  and  teaching 
was  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  This 
perhaps  attests  the  presence  in  his  reminiscences  of  a 
Johannine  as  well  as  a  Synoptic  tradition.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  might  be  urged  that  Irenaeus  makes  no  reference 
to  any  account  given  by  Polycarp  touching  the  origin  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  As  to  Ignatius,  Pfleiderer  asserts 
that  in  the  whole  of  his  genuine  Epistles  there  is  not  a 
single  sentence  which  points  to  dependence  on  the  Gospel 
or  Epistles  of  John.  Had  Ignatius  known  them,  he  must 
have  used  them  in  his  conflict  with  Docetism.  On  the 
other  hand,  Wemle,  while  he  agrees  with  Pfleiderer  as  to 
the  bearing  of  the  Ignatian  letters  on  the  problem  of  the 
apostle's  residence  in  Asia,  asserts  that  Ignatius  had  read 
the  Johannine  writings.  So,  too,  Loisy  says  that  Ignatius 
must  have  known  the  Fourth  Gospel  a  long  time  to  be 
penetrated  with  its  spirit  to  the  degree  we  see.  This  is 
all  the  more  significant  since,  while  Pfleiderer  adopts  the 
later  date  for  the  Ignatian  Epistles  formerly  assigned  to 
them  by  Hamack  (about  a.d.  130),  Wemle  places  them 
quite  early  in  the  second  century,  and  Loisy  towards 
A.D.  116. 

The  Gospel  was  also  employed  in  some  of  the  Gnostic 
schools.  Heracleon,  a  disciple  of  Valentinus,  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  Gospel  possibly  as  late  as  about 
175  A.D.  but  more  probably  not  long  after  160  a.d.  The 
very  fact  that  a  commentary  was  written  shows  that 


184      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

the  Gospel  was  regarded  as  an  authoritative  work.  Thig 
implies  a  fairly  long  previous  history,  and  this  inference 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  false  readings  had  crept  into 
the  text  on  which  Heracleon  commented.  Nevertheless 
the  date  at  which  he  wrote,  and  the  affinity  which  a 
Gnostic  would  feel  for  a  Gospel  that  lent  itself  so  readily 
to  the  discovery  in  it  of  Gnostic  doctrine,  must  be  taken 
into  account  on  the  other  side.  It  is  more  important  that 
Basilides,  according  to  a  quotation  in  Hippolytus  (vii.  22), 
used  the  Gospel.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  turn  the 
edge  of  this  argument  by  the  assertion  that  Hippolytus 
did  not  carefully  distinguish  between  what  Basihdes  and 
what  his  followers  had  said.  This  is  not  borne  out  by 
examination  of  his  usage  in  this  respect.  If  the  view  first 
suggested  by  Salmon  and  elaborated  by  Staehelin,  and 
subsequently  accepted  by  others  were  correct,  that 
Hippolytus  was  deceived  into  receiving  as  genuine  forgeries 
palmed  off  upon  him  by  an  unscrupulous  author,  the 
quotation  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  he  represents 
Basihdes  as  giving  could,  of  course,  count  for  nothing,  if 
among  the  forgeries  thus  accepted  by  him  the  account  of 
Basihdes'  system  is  to  be  included.  This  theory,  however, 
is  very  improbable,  at  any  rate  as  far  as  concerns 
Basilides.  It  must,  of  course,  be  admitted  that  several 
scholars  who  reject  the  hypothesis  of  forgery  still  believe 
that  the  accoimt  of  Hippolytus  refers  to  a  later  develop- 
ment in  the  school  and  not  to  the  views  of  Basilides  him- 
self. The  most  weighty  argument  in  favour  of  this  view 
is  that  it  is  difficult  to  harmonise  the  quotation  given  in 
the  Acts  of  Archdaus  by  Hegemonius,  in  which  Basilides 
expoimds  Persian  dualism,  with  the  monistic  system 
attributed  to  him  by  Hippolytus.  In  spite  of  this  real 
difficulty,  the  present  writer  continues  to  regard  the 
exposition  of  his  views  given  by  Hippolytus  as  the  more 
trustworthy  and  must  refer  for  his  reasons  to  his  article 
'  Basilides '  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Religion  and  Ethics, 


xviL]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  186 

At  the  same  time,  in  view  of  the  distrust  of  his  acoonnt 
which  is  widely  entertained,  it  is  not  advisable  to  lay 
ovennuch  stress  upon  it.  It  is  a  passage  out  of  the 
Prologue  which  is  quoted,  and  therefore  one  which 
originated  with  the  author  of  the  Gospel.  '  This,*  says  he, 
•  is  that  which  is  said  in  the  Gospels  "  tiiat  was  the  true 
light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world."  • 

Against  this  very  widespread  acceptance  of  tiie  Fourth 
Gospel  as  the  work  of  the  apostle  John  there  is  very  Uttle 
to  be  set  on  the  other  side.  There  were  some  people  in 
Asia  Minor,  about  160-170,  to  whom  Epiphanius,  perhaps 
following  Hippolytus,  gave  the  name  Alogi.  This  name 
had  the  advantage  in  the  eyes  of  its  inventor  that  it 
expressed  his  beUef  in  their  imbecility  and  at  the  same 
time  their  disbelief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos.  They  were 
of  a  somewhat  rationalistic  turn  of  mind,  and  strongly 
opposed  to  Montanism  and  millenarianism.  Since  they 
disUked  also  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  it  was  natural  that 
they  should  be  hostile  to  the  Gospel  which  so  emphatically 
taught  it.  Their  rejection  of  it  was  accordingly  based  not 
on  critical  but  doctrinal  grounds,  and  therefore  is  of  less 
importance  than  it  would  otherwise  have  been.  They  had 
obviously  no  tradition  to  warrant  their  verdict,  for  they 
attributed  the  Grospel  to  Cerinthus,  which  is  clearly 
impossible.  And  the  very  fact  that  they  thus  made  it  the 
work  of  a  ccwitemporary  of  John  testifies  to  a  behef  that 
it  was  as  old  as  his  time.  It  has  also  been  recently  argued 
with  plausibiHty  that  Caius  of  Rome  early  in  the  third 
century  attacked  the  Fourth  Grospel  (see  Ency.  Bib,, 
col.  1824,  n.  4). 

The  external  evidence,  then,  favours  the  view  that  the 
Gospel  was  written  by  the  apostle  John.  It  is  true  that 
it  cannot  be  called  conclusive.  The  possibility,  though  not 
the  probabiHty,  must  be  left  open  that  Irenaeus  confused 
the  apostle  with  the  presbyter  John.    It  even  more  dis- 


186      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [aa. 

tinctly  leaves  the  possibility  open  that  the  Gospel  incor- 
porates a  work  of  John.  In  that  case  we  should  have  a 
similar  phenomenon  in  the  First  Gospel,  which  is  not  in  its 
present  form  from  the  hand  of  Matthew,  but  probably 
incorporates  his  collection  of  Logia.  Whether  such 
theories  can  be  successfully  vindicated  in  the  case  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  a  matter  rather  for  internal  criticism, 
which  alone  can  detect  separate  strata  in  the  work  if  such 
separate  strata  exist.  It  would,  however,  also  be  possible 
that  the  relation  between  the  apostle  and  the  Gospel 
might  be  similar  to  that  asserted  by  Papias  to  exist  between 
Peter  and  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  In  other  words  John 
might  have  written  nothing,  but  the  story  which  he  told 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  might  have  been  the  basis  on  which 
the  Gospel  rested.  Hamack,  for  example,  considers  that 
the  Gospel  was  the  work  of  the  presbyter  John  incor- 
porating the  tradition  for  which  the  apostle  waa  responsible. 

Int&mal  Evidence. 

There  are  certain  passages  in  the  Gospel  which  have  been 
thought  to  affirm  that  the  author  was  an  eye-witness  of 
the  events  he  destAibes,  and  one  standing  in  a  relation  of 
pecuUar  intimacy  to  Jesus.  The  first  of  these  to  be  con- 
sidered is  xxi.  24  :  '  This  is  the  disciple  who  witnesseth 
concerning  these  things  and  he  who  wrote  these  things, 
and  we  know  that  his  witness  is  true.'  The  disciple  referred 
to  is  identified  by  v.  20  with  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved,  who  also  leaned  on  His  breast  at  the  supper.  The 
chapter  from  which  this  passage  is  taken  is  an  appendix 
to  the  Gospel,  which  obviously  reached  its  proper  close 
with  XX.  31.  It  is  not  of  special  importance  for  our 
present  purpose  to  decide  whether  xxi.  1-23  was  written 
by  the  author  of  i.-xx.  or  not.  But  it  seems  clear  that 
xxi.  24  is  not  from  the  hand  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel. 
It  IB,  so  to  speak,  a  certificate  stating  the  authorship  of 


Xtil]  the  gospel  AOOOEDING  to  JOHN  187 

the  Gospel  and  afl&nning  the  truthfukiess  of  the  narrative. 
It  has  been  commonly  supposed  that  it  was  added  by  the 
Ephesian  elders,  when  the  Gospel  was  first  put  into  cir- 
culation. Some  have  inferred  from  the  present  tense 
•  who  witnesseth '  that  the  author  of  the  Grospel  was  still 
alive.  This  is  uncertain,  for  the  reference  may  be  to  the 
witness  which  the  author  bears  in  his  Gtospel  after  his 
death.  We  have  no  evidence  that  the  Gospel  was  ever  in 
circulation  without  these  verses,  and  this  favours  tiie 
view  that  they  were  attached  before  the  Gospel  was 
published.  If  so,  they  contaiA  a  highly  important  piece 
of  contemporary  evidence  for  the  authorship  of  the  Gospel 
by  an  eye-witness.  Yet  the  possibihty  must  be  allowed 
that  the  words  '  he  that  wrote  these  things '  ought  not 
to  be  pressed  to  mean  the  actual  composition  of  the 
Gospel.  They  might  mean  simply  that  the  author  of  the 
Gospel  based  it  on  written  material  left  by  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  possible 
that  the  verse  in  question  is  a  late  addition,  resting  on  an 
inference  from  the  contents  of  the  Gospel,  which  may  or 
may  not  have  been  mistaken.  There  is  force  in  Schmiedel's 
remark  that  the  fact  that  the  testimony  of  the  author  is 
confirmed  suggests  that  he  is  not  a  very  authoritative 
person,  and  also  that  doubt  has  been  thrown  on  his 
testimony.  Nevertheless  the  verse  is  a  very  early  piece 
of  evidence  that  the  Gospel  was  written  by  the  beloved 
disciple,  and  as  such  is  entitled  to  great  weight. 

The  second  passage  is  xix.  35,  which  has  striking  points 
of  contact  with  xxi.  24,  and  has  given  rise  to  much  dis- 
cussion. The  passage  is  as  follows :  '  And  he  that  hath 
seen  hath  borne  witness  and  his  {avTtv)  witness  is  true, 
and  he  (eVerto?)  knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  may 
believe.'  The  reference  is  to  the  coming  out  of  blood  and 
water  from  the  pierced  side  of  Jesus.  The  question  is 
whether  the  author  is  intending  to  identify  himself  with 
the  eye-witness,  whose  testimony  he  reports,  or  to  dis- 


188      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oa 

tinguish  himself  from  him  and  refer  to  him  as  his  authority 
for  the  statement.  The  question  has  been  vainly  argued 
on  grammatical  grounds.  It  has  been  said  that  by  the 
use  of  Uelvos  the  author  shows  that  he  does  not  mean 
himself.  It  is  true  that  a  man  writing  of  himself  in  the 
third  person  would  not  ordinarily  refer  to  himself  by  this 
pronoun.  But  that  is  Uttle  to  the  purpose  here.  For 
one  thing,  cK-enos  is  a  favourite  word  with  the  author, 
and,  apart  from  this,  it  is  possible,  as  ix.  37  shows,  for  a 
person  thus  to  allude  to  himself,  though  the  parallel  is 
not  very  close.  It  may  now  be  taken  for  granted  that  no 
decision  can  be  reached  either  way  on  grammatical  grounds. 
On  this  point  it  will  be  enough  to  quote  the  words  of 
Schmiedel,  since  he  holds  very  high  rank  as  a  grammarian, 
and  at  the  same  time  entirely  rejects  the  Johannine 
authorship  of  the  Gospel,  and  does  not  favour  the  view 
that  the  author  meant  to  refer  to  himself  as  an  eye- 
witness :  '  The  elaborate  investigations  that  have  been 
made  on  the  question  whether  any  one  can  designate  himself 
by  iKeivoi  ('that')  are  not  only  indecisive  as  regards  any 
secure  grammatical  results  ;  they  do  not  touch  the  kernel 
of  the  question  at  all '  {Ency.  Bib.  2543). 

If  then  we  look  at  the  passage  as  a  whole,  it  is  not  easy  to 
reach  a  decision.  The  real  question,  as  both  Westcott  and 
Schmiedel  insist,  is — who  is  meant  by  the  phrase  '  he  that 
hath  seen '  ?  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  presumption 
that  a  reference  to  some  one  in  the  third  person  more 
naturally  suggests  that  the  person  so  referred  to  is  not 
identical  with  the  speaker.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the 
use  of  the  first  person  in  i.  14,  and  perhaps  the  first  person 
in  the  Revelation.  On  the  other  hand,  the  view  that  the 
writer  is  here  referring  to  another  than  himself,  who  was 
his  authority  for  the  statement  in  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
he  had  been  an  eye-witness  of  the  event,  labours  under 
difficulties.  It  is  rather  strange  that  the  writer  who  did 
not  see  the  event  should  affirm  the  truth  of  the  statement 


XtilJ  the  gospel  according  to  JOHN  189 

made  by  one  who  did.  It  is  stranger  still  that  he  should 
say  that  his  informant  knows  that  he  is  speaking  the 
truth,  for  it  may  be  urged  that  no  human  being  save  the 
informant  himself  can  know  whether  he  knows  or  not. 
If  the  writer  had  said, '  I  know  that  he  speaks  the  truth,* 
that  statement,  while  in  the  strictest  sense  incorrect, 
would  have  been  a  natural  and  substantially  accurate  way 
of  expressing  himself.  At  the  same  time,  the  reference 
to  the  eye-witness's  consciousness  that  he  is  telling  the 
truth  seems  rather  pointless  after  the  exphcit  statement 
*  his  witness  is  true.'  Why  add  that  he  knows  that  he  tells 
the  truth,  especially  with  the  purpose  of  arousing  con- 
fidence in  the  accuracy  of  his  statement  ?  If  they  could  not 
beUeve  his  statement,  were  they  any  more  likely  to  believe 
it  when  he  told  them  that  he  knew  that  his  statement  was 
true  ?  The  question  will  therefore  have  to  be  raised  later 
whether  a  third  way  of  taking  eKcivoi  may  not  be  possible. 

If  then,  leaving  aside  for  the  present  the  clause  '  he 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,'  we  confine  ourselves  to 
the  first  two  clauses,  the  probabiHties  may  seem  equally 
divided.  This  is  practically  Schmiedel's  conclusion,  not 
simply  from  these  two  clauses  but  from  the  whole  verse. 
Accordingly  he  solves  the  problem  in  another  way.  He 
urges  that  since  we  cannot  admit  the  historicity  of  the  fact 
attested,  for  while  blood  may  have  flowed  from  the  pierced 
side  of  Jesus,  water  cannot  have  flowed  with  it,  we  must 
assert  that  no  eye-witness  can  have  seen  it.  It  therefore 
reUeves  the  character  of  the  author  if  we  do  not  identify 
him  with  the  eye-witness,  for  thus  we  avoid  the  charge 
that  he  gave  himself  out  solemnly  as  having  seen  what  he 
had  really  not  seen  at  all.  At  the  same  time,  he  thinks 
that  owing  to  the  crucial  importance  which  the  water  and 
blood  had  for  him,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  he  did  not 
represent  himself  as  an  eye-witness. 

The  difficulties  attaching  to  the  narrative  relate  partly 
lo  the  possibiUty   of  the  incident  taking  place  at  all. 


190      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

partly  to  the  likelihood  of  the  disciple  being  able  to 
observe  it.  The  latter  needs  no  serious  consideration; 
we  do  not  know  enough  of  the  circumstances  to 
estimate  his  facilities  for  observation.  As  to  the  inci- 
dent itself,  it  was  argued  by  Dr.  Stroud  in  his  Physical 
Cause  of  the  Death  of  Christ  (published  1847  a.d.)  that 
Jesus  died  of  a  broken  heart.  This  was  based  on  the 
statement  in  this  verse  that  blood  and  water  flowed  from 
His  pierced  side,  and  was  confirmed  by  other  arguments 
such  as  the  surprising  quickness  of  His  death,  and  the  loud 
cry  at  the  moment  when  it  occurred.  Dr.  Creighton, 
however  [Ency.  Bib.  col.  960),  asserts  that  Dr.  Stroud  was 
wrong  in  his  facts,  and  that  the  phenomenon  does  not 
occur,  blood  and  water  from  an  internal  source  being  a 
mystery.  He  thinks  that  possibly  the  soldier's  thrust 
may  have  been  directed  at  something  on  the  surface  of  the 
body,  left  by  the  scourging  or  the  pressure  of  a  cord, 
and  adds,  '  Water  not  unmixed  with  blood  from  such 
superficial  source  is  conceivable.' 

The  difficulty  of  the  narrative  is  enhanced  by  the  fact 
that  blood  and  water  play  an  important  part  in  the 
theology  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John.  The  writer 
strenuously  insists  that  Jesus  came  not  by  water  only 
but  by  water  and  blood.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
some  consider  that  the  mystical  significance  of  water 
and  blood  has  coloured  the  narrative  in  the  Gospel, 
or  that  this  narrative  is  to  be  spiritually  interpreted 
(so  E.  A  Abbott),  In  itself  then  we  can  hardly  appeal 
to  the  passage  as  attesting  the  reality  of  the  fact, 
though  Dr.  Creighton  leaves  room  for  its  possibility,  and 
this  saves  us  from  the  necessity  of  treating  it  as  miraculous 
or  of  denying  it,  and  along  with  it  the  authentic  character 
of  the  testimony  borne  to  it.  Really  we  are  still  in  the 
same  position  with  reference  to  the  verse ;  it  may  or  may 
not  be  meant  to  identify  the  author  with  the  eye-witness, 
and  the  ultimate  decision  must  rest  on  other  considerations. 


XVII.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  191 

The  eye-witness  in  the  verse  is  generally  supposed  to  be 
the  same  as  the  beloved  disciple.  Some,  including 
Schmiedel,  think  that  this  conclusively  negatives  the  view 
that  he  is  to  be  identified  with  the  author,  since  such  a 
claim  to  have  been  the  especial  object  of  the  love  of  Jesus 
would  be  intolerable  on  a  man's  own  lips,  but  natural  on 
the  hps  of  one  who  wished  to  assert  that  disciple's  proper 
place.  Nothing  certain  can  be  based  on  this  argument, 
for  the  expression  will  seem  offensive  or  not  to  the  reader 
according  to  his  taste.  Many  see  in  it  a  beautiful  expres- 
sion of  gratitude  for  the  love  with  which  the  writer  knew 
that  Jesus  had  distinguished  him. 

Returning  now  to  the  meaning  of  ck«ivos  in  xix.  36,  we 
are  confronted  by  the  view  that  it  refers  to  the  exalted 
Christ.  This  occurred  independently  to  Dechent  and  Zahn, 
and  is  advocated  by  E.  A.  Abbott,  perhaps  also  independ- 
ently, and  by  Jannaris,  while  it  is  favoured  by  Sanday. 
Wendt  says  it  is  impossible,  for  no  one  could  have  under- 
stood by  the  pronoun  any  one  but  the  eye-witness.  This 
criticism  is  perhaps  less  convincing  than  appears  at  first 
sight.  Neither  of  the  two  alternatives  already  discussed  is 
quite  satisfactory,  and  they  agree  in  identifying  eKtiios  with 
the  eye-witness.  Further,  in  the  first  Epistle  UeLvo^  always 
refers  to  the  ascended  Christ,  and  had  thus  passed  almost 
into  a  technical  expression.  And  the  choice  of  so  emphatic 
a  pronoun  is  best  explained  on  this  view.  If  the  author  had 
meant  by  it  simply  the  eye-witness  it  would  have  been 
more  natural  to  use  avTo-;,  but  by  the  emphatic  pronoun 
he  calls  the  ascended  Lord  to  witness  that  he  speaks  the 
truth.  We  thus  get  a  worthy  sense  for  the  passage.  From 
his  own  human  testimony  to  the  wonder  of  the  blood  and 
water  the  writer  adds  a  reference  to  Christ's  consciousness 
of  its  truth,  thus  satisfying  the  canon  of  double  testimony 
and  rising  in  his  effort  to  produce  conviction  from  the 
witness  of  fallible  man  to  the  knowledge  of  the  infallible 
Christ.    Accordingly    this    passage    cannot    be    quoted 


IJ»      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ch. 

either  as  a  claim  of  the  author  for  himself  or  a  distinction 
between  the  author  and  the  eye-witness,  since  either 
sense  may  be  imposed  upon  it.  It  does,  however, 
definitely  contain  the  claim  that  the  authority  on  which 
the  statement  rests  was  that  of  an  eye-witness,  whether 
identical  with  the  author  of  the  Gospel  or  not. 

The  third  passage  in  which  it  is  thought  that  the  author 
claims  to  be  an  eye-witness  is  i.  14 ;  '  And  the  Word  became 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory.'  Those 
who  repudiate  this  interpretation  argue  that  the  passage 
is  to  be  interpreted  of  spiritual  vision.  It  is  the  language 
of  a  mystic,  and  not  to  be  explained  of  perception  by  the 
physical  senses.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  words  may  be 
so  interpreted,  though  the  verb  seems  always  to  be  used  of 
physical  vision  in  the  New  Testament.  Still  the  passage 
makes  the  impression  that  perception  with  the  bodily 
eye  is  here  intended.  Following  the  assertion  that  the 
Word  became  flesh,  a  reference  to  spiritual  vision  is  not 
so  natural.  For  the  incarnation  was  a  manifestation  of 
the  spiritual  in  the  realm  of  the  physical,  and  had  to  make 
its  appeal  to  physical  organs  of  perception.  It  is  true  that 
the  writer  says  '  we  beheld  his  glory,'  and  thus  may  seem 
to  mean  that  the  appeal  was  to  a  spiritual  faculty,  since 
faith  alone  could  penetrate  behind  the  lowly  appearance 
to  the  glorious  reality.  But  the  reference  might  be  to  the 
Transfiguration,  and  if  not  so,  the  glory  of  Christ 
according  to  the  Gospel  itself  was  shown  in  miraculous 
acts,  apprehended  by  the  physical  senses.  In  ii.  11  we 
read  with  reference  to  the  miracle  of  turning  water  into 
wine :  '  This  beginning  of  signs  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of 
Galilee  and  manifested  his  glory,  and  his  disciples  believed 
on  him.'  The  presumption  is  accordingly  rather  strong 
that  in  this  passage  the  writer  is  not  simply  claiming  for 
himself  such  a  spiritual  vision  of  the  glory  of  the  Word  aa 
all  Christians  may  be  said  to  enjoy,  but  to  have  actually 
seen  the  incarnate  Word  as  He  dwelt  on  earth. 


xni.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  193 

This  presumption  becomes  little  short  of  certainty  it  we 
admit,  as  we  should  do,  that  the  author  wrote  the  First 
Epistle  of  John.  The  opening  words  of  the  Epistle  are  so 
explicit,  that  it  would  be  hard  to  say  how  the  writer  could 
have  more  definitely  claimed  to  have  submitted  the  real 
humanity  of  the  Word  to  physical  tests  of  sight,  hearing, 
and  touch.  '  That  which  was  from  the  beginning,  which 
we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  which 
we  beheld  and  our  hands  handled,  concerning  the  Word 
of  life  (and  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have  seen 
and  bear  witness,  and  announce  to  you  the  eternal  life 
which  was  with  the  Father  and  was  manifested  to  us)  tha* 
which  we  have  seen  and  heard  we  announce  also  to  you.* 
This  passage  is  all  the  more  clear  in  its  reference  to 
physical  perception,  that  the  false  doctrine  attacked  by 
the  author  afi&rmed  that  Christ  had  not  come  in  the  flesh. 
The  reality  of  the  flesh  could  be  tested  only  by  physical 
senses.  Appeal  to  spiritual  vision  would  be  irrelevant. 
When  scholars  who  accept  the  unity  of  authorship  of 
the  Gospel  and  Epistle  are  driven  to  the  desperate  ex- 
pedient of  explaining  such  language  as  implying  spiritual 
perception  in  order  to  avoid  attributing  the  two  works  to 
an  eye-witness,  it  becomes  clear  that  their  testimony  to 
authorship  by  an  eye-witness  can  be  suppressed  only  by 
violent  methods.  Wendt  fully  admits  that  both  passage? 
claim,  and  rightly  claim,  to  proceed  from  an  eye-witness 
But  he  considers  the  Gospel  to  be  a  composite  work,  its 
author  being  a  later  writer  who  incorporated  an  earHer 
work  by  the  apostle  John.  He  also  attributes  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  apostle.  Unless  this  theory  of  composite 
authorship  be  correct,  it  seems  to  be  very  hard  to  evade 
the  conclusion  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  claims 
to  have  been  an  eye-witnras. 


From  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Gospel  to  its  anthorahip, 


194      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ch. 

we  turn  to  the  indirect  evidence  that  it  supplies.  The 
proof  of  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel  has  often 
been  exhibited  by  its  defenders  in  circles  gradually 
narrowing  down  to  a  point.  The  writer  is  shown  to  be 
(1)  a  Jew,  (2)  a  native  of  Palestine,  (3)  an  eye-witness, 
(4)  an  apostle,  (5)  the  apostle  John.  This  method  has  the 
advantage  of  bringing  the  greater  part  of  the  evidence 
under  review,  and  gradually  concentrating  that  in  favour 
of  the  Johannine  authorship. 

(1)  The  writer  was  a  Jew.  This  is  now  more  and 
more  admitted  by  opponents  of  the  authenticity.  The 
Tiibingen  school  denied  both  that  he  was  a  native  of 
Palestine,  and  that  he  was  a  Jew.  But  the  later  criticism 
has  not  supported  it  in  the  latter  view,  and  even  Schmiedel 
thinks  that  he  was  probably  a  Jew,  since  a  bom  Gentile 
would  not  easily  have  attached  so  great  value  to  the 
prophetic  significance  of  the  Old  Testament.  Quite  apart 
from  this,  however,  there  is  a  large  mass  of  evidence  which 
proves  familiarity  with  Jewish  ideas,  customs,  etc.  This 
is  conspicuously  the  case  with  reference  to  the  Jewish 
Messianic  ideas.  The  author  has  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  details  and  shades  of  opinion,  which  would  have  pos- 
sessed no  interest  for  a  Gentile.  He  takes  us  back  into  the 
controversies  of  the  time  of  Jesus,  moving  among  them 
easily,  as  one  who  had  himself  been  familiar  with  them. 
Thus  in  i.  19-28  we  have  references  to  three  personages  ex- 
pected by  the  Jews — the  Messiah,  Elijah,  and  the  prophet. 
Again  in  i.  45  the  Messiah  is  described  as  '  him,  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did  write.'  Incident- 
ally it  may  be  noticed  that  Philip  calls  Jesus  '  the  son  of 
Joseph,*  a  designation  which  Christian  writers  at  a  very 
early  period  began  to  avoid.  In  i.  49  Nathanael  hails 
Jesus  as  Son  of  Grod,  and  King  of  Israel.  The  latter  term 
very  soon  became  meaningless  in  the  Church,  the  expecta- 
tion of  a  national  Messiah  having  no  significance  for  Gentile 
CUristians.    But  it  is  true  to  the  Jewish  expectation.    So 


XTiLj  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  186 

in  the  sixth  chapter  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  convinces  the 
people  that  Jesus  is  the  prophet  that  cometh  into  the  world, 
and  has  its  natural  issue  in  the  attempt  to  make  Him  the 
Messianic  Eling,  a  point  missed  by  the  Synoptists.  In 
yii.  25-36  we  have  an  account  of  the  disputes  among  the 
people  concerning  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus.  Some 
urge  that  the  secrecy  of  the  Messiah's  origin  is  fatal  to  the 
view  that  Jesus  can  be  the  Messiah,  since  His  origin  is 
known.  Others  point  to  His  miracles  and  argue  thai  even 
the  Messiah  will  not  do  more.  So  in  w.  40-43  we  have  a 
further  account  of  the  various  views  taken  of  Jesus  by  the 
multitude.  Some  thought  He  was  the  prophet,  others 
r^arded  him  as  the  Messiah,  while  others  asserted  that 
the  Messiah  must  be  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  of  David's 
village  Bethlehem,  and  therefore  that  Jesus  could  not  be 
the  Messieth  since  He  came  from  Galilee.  The  Messianic 
title  King  of  Israel  is  used  again  in  xii.  13  (of.  also  xix. 
14,  16,  21),  while  in  xii.  34  we  have  mention  of  a  current 
doofoine  that  the  Messiah  abideth  for  ever.  All  this 
points  very  strongly  to  the  author's  Jewish  nationality, 
tiiough  it  cannot  be  pressed  to  prove  his  early  date.  For 
in  itself  it  is  quite  compatible  with  the  view  that  it  reflects 
the  later  controversies  of  the  Christians  and  the  Jews,  and 
that  the  writer  antedates  these  discussions  and  puts  the 
Christian  argument  for  the  Messiahship  and  Divinity  of 
Jesus  into  His  own  mouth. 

Other  points  of  Jewish  opinion  with  which  he  is 
familiar  are  the  contempt  of  the  Pharisees  for  ^ose 
untrained  in  the  law  (vii.  47),  the  relation  of  punish- 
ment to  sin,  and  the  possibility  that  the  sin  of  the 
parents  might  be  punished  in  the  child,  and  especially  tiie 
possibility  of  sin  before  birth  (ix.  1,  2).  He  is  acquainted 
with  the  Jewish  feasts,  not  merely  with  the  Passover  and 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  but  also  the  Feast  of  Dedication, 
which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  other  Grospels  nor  in  the  Old 
Testament.    He  knows  that  the  last  day  of  the  Feast  of 


196      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

Tabernacles  is  the  great  day  of  the  feast,  and  that  the 
Sabbath  mentioned  (xix.  31)  is  a  high  day.  He  is  aware 
of  the  fawjt  that  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans, 
and  that  the  command  to  circumcise  on  the  eighth  daj 
overrides  even  the  law  of  the  Sabbath.  A  precise  descrip- 
tion is  given  of  the  Jewish  method  of  embalming  (xix. 
39,  40).  The  author  is  aware  that  by  entering  the  palace 
of  the  Roman  governor  the  Jews  would  incur  ceremonial 
defilement  which  would  disqualify  them  for  eating  the 
Passover  (xviii.  28),  and  similarly  that  the  bodies  of  the 
crucified  should  not  remain  on  the  cross  till  the  Sabbath 
(xix.  31).  We  have  a  reference  also  to  the  Jews'  manner 
of  purifying  (ii.  6).  Moreover,  the  style  of  the  writer  is 
strongly  Hebraistic.  His  Greek  is  correct,  but  it  is  the 
Greek  of  one  who  has  been  accustomed  to  form  his 
sentences  on  a  Semitic  not  a  Greek  model. 

Against  this  impressive  evidence  for  the  author's  Jewish 
nationaUty  there  is  Httle  to  be  set  on  the  other  side.  It 
has  been  urged  that  a  Jew  would  not  have  spoken  of 
'  the  Jews  *  as  the  writer  often  speaks.  Parallels  may, 
it  is  true,  be  quoted,  as  Mark's  reference  to  '  the  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews '  (vii.  8),  perhaps  Matt,  xxviii.  16,  '  this 
saying  was  spread  abroad  among  the  Jews,'  and  Paul's 
statement  '  to  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew  '  (1  Cor.  ix.  20). 
At  the  same  time  the  usage  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  much 
more  peculiar.  The  term  is  used  nearly  seventy  times, 
whereas  its  use  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  is  rather  infrequent. 
It  occurs  sixteen  times  in  them,  and  in  all  but  four  of 
these  in  the  phrase  '  the  king  of  the  Jews.'  In  John  we 
have  such  expressions  as  *  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  a  feast 
of  the  Jews  '  (vii.  2),  or  '  the  passover  a  feast  of  the  Jews ' 
(vi.  4),  or  even  '  the  Jews'  passover '  (ii.  13,  xi.  55),  or 
'  the  Jews'  Preparation '  (xix.  42),  which  certainly  sound 
strange  on  the  lips  of  one  who  was  himself  a  Jew.  It 
should  be  observed,  however,  that  since  the  feasts  could 
be  observed  outside  of  Palestine,  this  usage  tells  not  simply 


xviLj  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  197 

against  Palestinian  residence,  but  against  Jewish 
nationality.  Yet  it  is  urged  against  the  former  by  some 
who  admit  the  latter.  But  this  does  not  apply  to  the  great 
majority  of  instances,  which  would  be  much  more  natural 
on  the  part  of  a  foreign  than  a  Palestinian  Jew.  In  these 
the  term  indicates  not  those  of  Jewish  nationahty  in  general, 
but  a  special  section  of  the  Jewish  people.  From  vii.  1 
it  would  seem  that  they  were  for  the  most  part  living 
in  Judaea,  since  it  is  said  that  Jesus  was  walking  in  Galilee, 
for  He  was  not  willing  to  walk  in  Judaea  because  the  Jews 
were  seeking  to  slay  Him.  It  is  true  that  we  find  '  the 
Jews  *  present  at  the  discourse  on  the  bread  of  Ufe  (vi. 
40,  52).  This  is  said  to  have  been  deUvered  at  the  syna- 
gogue at  Capernaum,  though  Wendt  argues  that  really  it 
was  at  Jerusalem.  If  it  was  a  Galilaean  discourse,  then  we 
must  conclude  either  that  the  reference  is  to  Jews  who 
were  present  from  Jerusalem,  which  the  context  does 
not  favour,  or  that  the  author  used  the  term  in  a  wider 
«ense  than  was  usual  with  him. 

The  most  characteristic  employment  of  the  term  is 
that  for  the  party  of  hostility  to  Christ.  We  have 
about  twenty-five  instances  of  this  (cf.  vi.  13 ;  ix.  22 ; 
xviii.  12,  14).  The  term  is  also  used  in  some  cases 
in  which  disputes  or  discourses  about  Jesus  are  chronicled, 
either  because  the  sayings  of  Jesus  were  obscure  giving 
rise  to  various  interpretations  (vi.  52 ;  vii.  35,  36 ;  viii. 
22),  or  because  some  asserted  while  others  denied  the 
genuineness  of  His  claims  (x.  19).  The  term  is  also 
used  in  a  neutral  sense  with  no  suggestion  of  any 
specific  attitude  towards  Jesus  (xi.  19,  31,  33,  36 ;  xviiL 
20) ;  and  we  have  references  to  believing  Jews  (viii.  31 ; 
xi.  45),  and  Jesus  Himself  says  to  the  woman  of  Samaria 
that  salvation  is  of  the  Jews  (iv.  22).  It  may  be  suggested 
that  these  phenomena  are  not  incompatible  with  authorship 
by  a  Palestinian  Jew,  in  one  who  was  a  Galilaean,  who 
wrote  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  annihilated 


198      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

fehe  nation  but  embittered  and  intensified  the  racial 
and  sectarian  feelings  of  the  Jews ;  when,  further,  the  Jews 
and  Christians  were  sharply  distinguished  from  each  other 
and  the  former  were  notoriously  hostile  to  the  latter,  and 
when  the  author  himself  had  been  long  absent  from 
Palestine  and  separated  from  his  own  race.  It  was  not 
unnatural  that  he  should  use  a  term,  with  which  at  the  end 
of  the  first  century  a  definite  attitude  of  hostility  to 
Christianity  had  become  associated,  to  indicate  those  who 
adopted  a  similar  attitude  towards  Christ. 

The  statement  about  Caiaphas  that  he  was  high-priest 
in  that  year  (xi.  49,  51  ;  xviii.  13)  has  been  urged  by  some 
against  the  Jewish  nationality  of  the  writer,  though  others 
who  admit  that  he  was  a  Jew  by  race  think  that  he  was  not 
•%  native  of  Palestine.  It  is  said  that  the  author  was  so 
ignorant  of  Jewish  affairs  that  he  regarded  the  High 
Priesthood  as  a  yearly  office,  a  mistake  which  Holtzmann 
and  his  namesake  Oscar  Holtzmann  suppose  to  have  arisen 
from  the  fact  that  the  Asian  high-priesthood  did  change 
hands  every  year.  It  is  by  no  means  unanimously  accepted 
among  those  who  deny  the  Johannine  authorship  that  the 
writer  really  made  this  mistake.  Schmiedel,  it  is  true, 
speaks  as  if  it  needed  no  proof,  and  asserts  that  against 
this  serious  mistake  the  evidence  of  accurate  acquaintance 
with  geographical  and  historical  detail  has  but  little 
weight.  But  Keim,  who  rejected  the  Johannine  authorship, 
expressed  a  different  view.  He  says  :  '  The  high-priest 
of  the  Death- Year  is  significant  and  does  not  at  all  betray 
the  opinion  of  a  yearly  change  in  the  office.'  This  seems 
to  be  the  correct  view  to  take.  The  author  meant  to  lay 
stress  on  the  fact  that  Caiaphas  was  the  high-priest  in  the 
year  in  which  Christ  died.  He  appears  to  have  in  mind 
the  yearly  sacrifice  which  the  high-priest  had  to  offer 
on  the  Day  of  Atonement,  and  it  thus  becomes  significant 
that  Caiaphas  as  high-priest  had  a  part  in  putting  to  death 
the  antitype  of  that  yearly  sacrifice.    The  author  repeats 


xni.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  199 

the  phrase  three  times  (xi.  49,  61 ;  xviii.  13),  and 
evidently  attaches  much  importance  to  it.  For  he  uses 
€K€tvos,  which  is  a  favourite  word  with  him  when  he 
wishes  to  make  an  emphatic  statement.  The  expression 
has  been  happily  paraphrased  *  high-priest  that  fateful 
year.'  It  has  all  the  more  point  when  it  is  remembered 
that  under  the  Roman  rule  the  office  so  frequently  changed 
hands,  and  while  Caiaphas  himself  held  it  for  at  least  ten 
years,  his  three  immediate  predecessors  held  it  for  only 
three  years  between  them.  And  it  is  difficult  to  admit  that 
one  so  well  acquainted  with  Jewish  life,  thought,  and 
customs  as  the  author  clearly  was,  could  have  blundered 
on  a  matter  of  such  common  knowledge.  It  may  therefore 
be  granted  as  a  result  of  the  preceding  inquiry  that  the 
author  was  a  Jew. 

(2)  The  author  was  a  Palestinian  Jew.  This  proposition 
is  still  strongly  contested  by  opponents  of  the  Johannine 
authorship,  though  many  of  the  deJBnite  arguments  on 
which  stress  has  been  laid  are  now  largely  abandoned. 
It  used  to  be  urged  that  a  whole  series  of  geographical 
blunders  had  been  committed  by  the  author.  To-day 
tiie  best  representatives  of  the  opposition  to  the  tradi- 
tional view  have  withdrawn  from  this  position.  Schiirer 
thinks  that  in  each  case  the  author  may  very  well  have 
been  correct  {Contemporary  Review,  Sept.  1891,  p.  408). 
Schmiedel  says  that  if  the  places  in  question  have  not 
been  satisfactorily  identijfied,  '  the  fact  ought  not  to  be 
urged  as  necessarily  proving  defective  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  the  author'  {Ency.  Bib.,  col.  2542).  He  mentions 
other  points  in  which  the  evangehst's  accuracy  may  be 
vindicated,  such  as  the  forty-six  years  during  which  the 
Temple  was  in  process  of  building,  and  the  name  of  the 
ravine  mentioned  in  xviii.  1  (on  the  text  see  article '  Kidron,' 
Ency.  Bib.,  col.  2661 ;  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  pp.  172- 
175).  He  thinks,  however,  that  the  mistake  involved 
in  the  phrase  '  high-priest  in  that  year '  outweighs  all  the 


200      INTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      (cs. 

evidence  of  acquaintance  with  Palestine  which  may  be 
found  in  these  names.  This  point,  however,  has  already 
been  discussed,  and  a  different  conclusion  reached. 

Not  only  has  the  criticism  of  the  writer's  accuracy  broken 
down,  but  the  Gospel  contains  many  positive  indications 
of  his  acquaintance  with  Palestine.  The  author  cannot 
with  any  plausibility  be  assumed  to  have  derived  his 
knowledge  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  other  Gospels, 
or  non-Biblical  literature.  He  knows  Cana  of  Galilee, 
which  has  not  been  mentioned  before,  also  Ephraim  nesur 
the  wilderness,  and  Aenon  near  to  Salim.  His  knowledge 
of  distances  and  the  relative  position  of  places  is  accurate, 
but  it  comes  to  expression  in  a  perfectly  natural  and 
spontaneous  way.  He  knows  Jerusalem  well,  the  Pool 
of  Bethesda  by  the  sheep-gate  with  its  five  porches,  the 
Pool  of  Siloam,  Golgotha  nigh  to  the  city  with  its  garden 
there,  the  Pavement  with  its  Hebrew  title.  Some  of  these 
are  not  mentioned  elsewhere.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  Gospel  was  written  after  the  Jewish  war,  when 
Jerusalem  had  been  razed  to  the  ground  and  old  landmarks 
had  been  effaced.  It  would  not  have  been  easy  for  one 
who  had  never  been  in  Palestine  to  move  so  freely  in  the 
descriptions  of  a  ci^  which  had  been  destroyed  a  good 
many  years  earUer. 

An  important  question  is  raised  in  this  connexion 
with  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  found  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle.  It  is  frequently 
asserted  by  opponents  of  the  Joharmine  authorship,  and 
by  some  of  its  defenders,  that  this  doctrine  was  borrowed 
from  Philo.  Certainly  the  Logos  has  with  Philo  a  very 
important  place.  He  is  represented  as  the  medium 
between  God  and  the  universe,  and  as  the  agent  through 
whom  the  world  was  created.  Very  lofty  terms  are  used 
of  him.  He  speaks  of  him  as  '  the  Son  of  Grod,'  '  God,' 
'  the  first-bom  Son,*  *  the  head  of  the  body,'  '  image  of 
God,*    '  high-priest,*    '  archetypal   man.'    It   is   doubtfol 


xm.)  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  SOI 

whether  he  regarded  the  Logos  as  personal,  his  langnsge 
being  indecisive  and  perhaps  inconsistent.  The  term 
with  him  means  '  Reason '  rather  than  '  Word,'  and  any 
idea  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  would  have  been  quite 
foreign  to  his  thought.  Nor  has  the  Logos  any  relation 
to  the  Messianic  hope  or  special  connexion  with  Jewish 
history.  The  conception  was  mainly  speculative  and 
metaphysical  rather  than  religious,  and  designed  to  secure 
the  absolute  separation  of  God  from  the  world. 

That  Alexandrian  philosophy  influenced  Christian  theo- 
logy at  an  early  period  is  true.  Apollos  was  an  Alexan- 
drian Jew,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  bears  clear 
marks  of  the  profound  impression  made  by  the  teaching  of 
Philo.  Yet  it  is  significant  that  the  term  Logos  is  not 
appUed  to  the  Son  in  Hebrews,  though  substantially  its 
doctrine  coincides  with  that  of  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  This  fact  makes  it  possible  that  we  should  dis- 
tinguish carefully  between  the  contents  of  the  doctrine  and 
the  term  by  which  it  was  indicated.  It  Hes  on  the  surface 
that  a  deep  gulf  separates  the  Logos  of  Philo  from  the 
Logos  of  John,  though  it  has  to  be  recognised  that  Philo's 
conception  must  have  been  radically  transformed  if  it  was 
taken  over  into  Christianity.  Still,  Hamack  says  with 
much  reason,  '  The  conception  of  God's  relation  to  the 
world  as  given  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not  Philonic.  The 
Logos  doctrine  there  is  therefore  essentially  not  that  of 
Philo  *  {History  of  Dogma,  E.  Tr.,  vol.  i.  p.  114).  He  says 
elsewhere  in  speaking  of  the  Johannine  theology  :  '  even 
the  Logos  has  httle  more  in  common  with  that  of  Philo 
than  the  name*  (p.  97).  Now  the  Johannine  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  has  in  common  with  that  not  only  of  Hebrews 
but  of  Paul  essentially  everything  but  the  name.  We  are 
therefore  more  Justified  in  looking  to  these  authors  than  to 
Philo  for  the  substance  of  the  doctrine.  Even  if  it  be 
granted  that  the  term  went  back  to  Philo,  and  behind  him 
ultimately  to  HeracUtus  and  the  Stoics,  there  is  nothing 


a04      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [c& 

in  that  which  should  make  its  nse  by  the  apostle  John 
strange.  He  would  find  it  in  use  in  Asia,  and  partly,  it 
may  be,  to  rescue  it  from  false  associations,  partly  because 
it  seemed  a  fit  vehicle  for  his  doctrine  of  the  pre-existent 
Son,  might  adopt  it  as  a  fundamental  term.  This  would 
involve  no  deep  study  of  Philo,  but  simply  the  taking 
over  of  a  term  which  he  had  introduced  into  theological 
phraseology. 

Several  scholars  indeed  argue  that  even  the  term 
is  not  borrowed  from  Philo  but  from  Palestinian 
theology.  In  the  Targums  we  have  a  doctrine  of  the 
Word  or  Memra.  They  constantly  paraphrase  the  mention 
of  an  act  of  God  in  Scripture  by  saying  that  God  did  it 
through  His  Word.  Thus  '  God  came  to  Balaam '  is 
paraphrased  '  The  Word  of  Yahweh  came  to  Balaam ' ; 
and  the  word  of  a  man  even  is  often  used  for  the  man 
himself.  A  third  possible  origin  has  been  recently  pointed 
out,  that  the  term  may  have  been  derived  from  the 
Hermetic  literatui-e.  There  are  several  analogies  between 
the  Poimandres  and  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  combination 
of  Logos,  Life,  and  Light  occurs  in  both  in  a  way  not 
paralleled  elsewhere.  Pleroma  ('  fulness ')  is  a  common  term 
in  the  Hermetic  Uterature,  and  the  Door,  the  Shepherd,  and 
the  Vine  have  also  their  analogies.  The  prevailing  view 
has  been  that  the  literature  belongs  to  a  later  time  than 
the  Gospel.  Reitzenstein,  the  most  recent  editor  of  the 
Poimandres  and  probably  the  highest  authority  on  the 
subject,  dates  it  earlier,  and  thinks  it  has  influenced  Paul 
as  well  as  John,  though  he  rejects  the  idea  that  the  Gospel 
can  be  explained  out  of  the  Hermetic  literature.  Grill 
seems  inclined  to  admit  the  probability  of  influence; 
Clemen  thinks  it  is  really  possible,  but  by  no  means 
certain,  since  it  is  not  clear  that  the  Gospel  is  the  later. 
Mead  in  his  Thrice  Greatest  Hermes  strongly  advocates  the 
priority  of  the  Poimandres  and  its  influence  on  the  Gospel. 
The  latest  discussion  of  the  Hermetic  literature,  including 


jmi.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  108 

•n  argnment  for  early  date,  is  to  be  found  in  Petrie's 
Personal  Religion  in  Egypt. 

The  case  stands  then  as  follows.  The  doctrine  of 
tiie  Prologue  was  already  formulated  in  Paul  and 
Hebrews ;  the  term  Logos  may  have  been  a  mere  trans- 
lation of  Memra,  and  therefore  requires  no  influence 
outside  Palestine  to  explain  it,  and  even  if  the  term 
went  back  to  Philo,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  why 
a  Palestinian  who  had  lived  in  Asia  should  not  have 
used  it,  nor  why  he  should  have  been  unfamiliar  with 
Hermetic  speculations,  if  it  can  be  granted  that  they 
had  been  formulated  before  his  time.  Wendt  agrees  that 
John  actually  used  the  term  both  in  the  Prologue  to  the 
Gospel,  most  of  which  he  attributes  to  him,  and  in  the 
First  Epistle,  though  he  adopts  the  dubious  theory  that 
the  Logos  is  there  regarded  as  impersonal.  He  thinks 
the  origin  of  the  usage  is  to  be  traced  to  Alexandria  rather 
than  Palestine. 

(3)  The  author  was  an  eye-witness.  This  is  shown  by 
the  ease  with  which  the  writer  moves  among  the  cir- 
cumstances that  he  describes,  and  by  the  way  in  which  he 
constantly  realises  the  situation.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  the  author  exhibits  a  remarkable  know- 
ledge of  the  Messianic  beliefs  current  in  the  Judaism  of 
the  time.  Here  the  further  point  is  to  be  observed  that  he 
describes  how  these  beUefs  affected  the  attitude  of  the 
people  towards  Jesus.  In  other  words,  it  is  not  simply 
the  enumeration  of  a  series  of  beliefs,  but  the  action  of 
these  beliefs  in  concrete  situations  that  he  describes. 
It  would  have  been  a  matter  of  extraordinary  difficulty 
for  a  writer  even  of  great  imaginative  power  to  have 
delineated  the  play  of  these  two  forces  on  each  other — the 
behefs  of  the  people  on  the  one  side,  and  the  individuality 
of  Jesus  on  the  other.  In  Sanday's  words,  '  No  genius, 
we  contend,  would  have  treated  the  collision  between 
Judaism  and  nascent  Christianity  as  the  Evangelist  has 


804      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

dealt  with  it ;  and  we  securely  rest  upon  that  for  proof 
that  no  middle  link  intervenes  between  the  facts  and 
their  narrator '  {Contemporary  Review,  Oct.  1891,  p.  540). 

The  exact  details  as  to  time  and  place,  persons  and 
numbers,  point  to  the  recollections  of  an  eye-witness. 
Special  events  are  associated  with  definite  localities  ;  the 
nobleman's  son  was  sick  at  Capernaum  while  Jesus  was 
at  Cana ;  Jesus  finds  the  man,  whom  He  had  healed  on 
the  Sabbath,  in  the  Temple ;  certain  of  His  utterances  are 
connected  with  the  Treasury  and  with  Solomon's  porch. 
Persons  are  mentioned  in  a  familiar  and  easy  way ;  some 
of  them  do  not  occur  elsewhere,  e.g.  Lazarus  and  Nicodemus. 
Various  persons  are  connected  with  definite  questions 
addressed  to  Christ.  Points  of  time  are  exactly  indicated : 
the  sixth  hour,  the  seventh  hour,  the  tenth  hour,  in  the 
early  morning.  The  length  of  a  period  of  time  is  indicated 
in  several  cases  :  the  duration  of  Christ's  stay  in  Samaria, 
of  His  delay  before  He  went  to  Lazarus,  of  the  interval 
that  elapsed  between  the  death  and  the  raising  of  the 
latter.  Definite  numbers  are  freely  given :  the  six  water- 
pots,  the  four  soldiers  by  the  Cross,  the  twenty-five  or 
thirty  furlongs  the  disciples  had  gone  before  Jesus  came 
to  them  walking  on  the  sea,  the  thirty-eight  years  that  the 
sick  man  had  suffered,  the  two  hundred  cubits  the  boat 
was  from  land  (xxi.  8),  the  number  of  the  fish  caught, 
one  hundred  and  fifty-three  (xxi.  11).  To  these 
may  be  addol  little  touches  such  as  that  the  loaves 
with  which  the  multitude  was  fed  were  barley  loaves, 
that  the  house  was  filled  with  the  odour  of  the  ointment, 
that  the  coat  of  Christ  was  woven  without  seam. 

Li  a  modem  writer  of  fiction  these  details  would  not  be 
surprising,  since  it  is  in  this  way  that  he  makes  on  his 
readers  the  impression  of  reality.  But  it  is  very  difficult  to 
believe  that  the  writer  of  a  Gospel  in  the  second  century 
should  have  been  so  fax  in  advance  of  his  age  in  Uterary 
axt  as  to  trick  his  narrative  out  with  details  invented 


sni.]  THE  GOSPEL  AOCORDINO  TO  JOHN  106 

in  order  to  make  an  impression  of  reality  on  his  readers. 
And  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  modem  novelist 
intends  his  narrative  to  be  taken  as  fiction,  the  details  are 
introduced  not  to  make  his  readers  believe  that  his  story 
is  true,  but  to  secure  more  powerful  effects.  In  the  case 
of  the  Gospel,  however,  the  writer  would  deliberately 
invent  precise  details  that  he  might  mislead  his  readers 
into  accepting  as  true  what  was  simply  the  product  of  his 
own  imagination.  It  is  rather  hard  to  beUeve  that  the 
moral  sensitiveness  of  the  author  was  so  blunt  as  this. 
The  case  would  be  altered,  however,  if  these  details  were 
invested  with  a  symbolic  significance.  This  view  of  them 
has  been  more  or  less  taken  by  several  scholars.  Some  of 
these,  of  course,  consider  that  the  narratives  are  purely 
allegorical,  but  some  adherents  of  the  traditional  view 
who  have  asserted  the  historicity  of  the  events  narrated 
have  nevertheless  imposed  upon  them  an  allegorical 
significance.  It  is  probably  true  that  the  writer  has 
selected  his  material  with  this  in  view,  as  the  connexion 
between  narrative  and  teaching  strongly  suggests.  For 
example,  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  leads  to  the  dis- 
course on  the  Bread  of  Life,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man 
presents  Jesus  as  the  Light  of  the  World,  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  teaches  that  Jesus  is  the  Resurrection  and  the 
Life,  the  coming  out  of  blood  and  water  from  His  side  is  not 
only  a  positive  refutation  of  Docetism,  but  symboUses  that 
Jesus  had  come  not  with  water  only,  but  with  water  and 
blood. 

But  the  attempt  to  carry  through  allegory  every- 
where leads  to  very  strange  results.  When  one  reads  the 
interpretation  of  the  story  of  the  woman  of  Samaria  one 
is  forcibly  reminded  of  the  Tiibingen  interpretation  of 
Euodia  and  Syntyche,  a  striking  example  of  the  possi- 
bilities of  theory  divorced  from  common  sense.  The 
woman  of  Samaria  is,  of  course,  the  half-heathen  Samaritan 
oommunily.    She  has  had  five  husbands,  that  means  the 


206      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

five  heathen  gods  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xvii.  31,  32  as  wor- 
shipped by  the  Samaritans.  Her  present  irregular  lover  ia 
Yahweh,  whom  she  illegitimately  worships.  It  is  a  pity  for 
this  interpretation,  which  may  be  found  in  numerous  com- 
mentaries and  discussions,  that  these  gods  were  seven  and 
not  five;  that  they  were  worshipped  simultaneously  and 
not  successively  ;  and  it  is  hardly  likely  that  idolatry 
should  be  represented  as  marriage,  when  its  usual  symbol 
is  adultery,  or  that  the  author  should  have  represented 
Yahweh  under  so  offensive  a  figure.  Holtzmann,  in  fact, 
in  view  of  this  difficulty,  supposes  that  by  the  irregular 
lover  Simon  Magus  must  be  meant ;  but  it  would  be  very 
odd  to  place  a  man  in  line  with  deities,  and  was  Samaria's 
connexion  with  him  less  legitimate  than  with  them  ? 
Readers  with  any  literary  tact  will  feel  that  the  story  of 
the  woman  of  Samaria  is  admirably  told,  full  of  life  and 
movement,  and  even  with  touches  of  humour.  The  request 
for  water,  the  woman's  surprise,  the  attempt  of  Jesus  to 
lead  her  to  a  sense  of  spiritual  need,  her  crass  misunder- 
standing, the  probing  of  her  conscience  by  the  reminder 
of  her  past,  the  woman's  ready-witted  diverting  of  the 
conversation  from  the  embarassingly  personal  channel  to 
questions  of  theology,  all  follow  simply  and  naturally. 
Yet  of  this  scene,  so  admirably  managed,  R^ville  can  say, 
and  Pfleiderer  can  quote  his  words  with  approval,  *  Taken 
literally,  this  scene  is  as  absurd  as  that  of  the  marriage 
of  Cana.' 

On  the  allegorical  interpretation  what  are  we  to  make  of 
many  features  in  the  narrative — that  Jesus  was  weary, 
that  it  was  Jacob's  well,  that  the  place  was  Sychar,  that 
the  woman  came  at  a  certain  hour,  that  Jesus  had  nothing 
to  draw  with,  that  the  woman  left  her  water-pot,  that 
His  disciples  marvelled  that  He  talked  with  the  woman  ? 
The  allegorist  misses  his  mark  if  the  allegory  is  not  trans- 
parent, yet  what  symboUcal  meaning  can  be  attached  to 
these  trivial  details  ?    If  it  is  a  real  history  that  the  author 


XVII.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  »7 

means  to  tell,  whether  truth  or  fiction  they  fall  naturally 
into  their  places.  If  they  are  allegories  it  is  hard  to  find 
a  suitable  meaning  for  them.  Wrede  does  much  more 
Justice  to  the  Hterary  quality  of  the  narrative ;  he  says  that 
the  movement  of  the  dialogue  between  Jesus  and  the 
Samaritan  woman  is  incomparably  finer  than  that  with 
Nicodemus. 

Similarly  one  might  treat  the  story  of  the  man  bom 
blind,  or  the  incident  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand. And  so  we  might  accumulate  a  large  number  of 
points  which  speak  against  the  allegorical  interpretation. 
Think  of  the  numerous  triviahties  in  the  Gospel,  the 
reference  to  points  of  time  to  which  significance  cannot 
without  violence  be  attached,  or  to  distances.  Why  does 
the  allegorist  tell  us  that  the  boat  was  about  twenty-five 
or  thirty  furlongs  from  the  shore,  which  looks  Uke  the 
rough  calculation  of  one  who  was  actually  there ;  or 
why  that  Bethany  was  about  fifteen  furlongs  from  Jeru- 
salem ?  Why  should  he  trouble  to  tell  us  that  there 
were  six  water-pots  of  stone,  and  again  give  a  rough 
estimate  of  their  size,  that  they  held  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece  ?  What  allegory  Hes  concealed  behind  the  lad  at 
the  miracle  of  the  feeding,  or  the  fact  that  his  stock 
consisted  of  barley  loaves  ?  Why  should  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  man  be  anointed  with  clay  ?  Why  should  we  be  told 
that  Lazarus  was  buried  in  a  cave  ?  What  is  the  object 
of  saying  at  one  time  that  Jesus  spoke  in  the  treasury, 
and  on  another  occasion  that  it  was  in  Solomon's  porch,  with 
the  added  touch  that  it  was  winter  ?  What  is  the  meaning 
of  the  fire  of  charcoal  at  the  scene  of  Peter's  denial  ?  Why 
the  curious  new  and  insignificant  names  such  as  Cana  and 
Ephraim  and  Malchus  ?  Why  the  objectless  visit  to 
Capernaum  mentioned  in  ii.  12,  or  the  many  other  details 
that  are  not  patient  of  a  symbolical  interpretation,  which 
any  reader  of  the  Gospel  may  collect  in  abundance  for 
himself  ?    The  cool  stream  of  common  sense  which  John 


906      mTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oa 

Spencer  poured  on  those  who  found  deep  religious  mysteriea 
in  the  Levitical  rites  would  not  come  amiss  to  those  critics 
who  in  this  matter  also  '  embrace  a  cloud  instead  of  Juno.' 
It  may  be  granted  that  much  which  to  us  would  seem 
absurd  and  fanciful  might  have  come  to  seem  quite  natural 
to  a  writer  saturated  with  Rabbinic  and  Alexandrian  notions 
as  to  the  significance  of  numbers  and  names.  Yet  when 
sufficient  allowance  for  this  has  been  made  it  can  hardly 
be  regarded  as  probable  that  a  narrative  written  on  these 
principles  should  be  so  spontaneous  and  give  so  slight  an 
impression  of  artifice.  Thus  according  to  E.  A.  Abbott 
the  sick  man  at  Bethesda  represents  sinful  Israel ;  he  waits 
for  the  troubling  of  the  water  thirty-eight  years,  which 
corresponds  to  Israel's  thirty-eight  years  of  wandering; 
the  intermittent  pool  symboUses  the  intermittent  purifica- 
tion of  the  Law ;  the  five  porches  represent  the  five  senses 
of  unredeemed  humanity  (though  Schmiedel  makes  them 
represent  the  five  books  of  Moses).  The  one  hundred 
and  fifty-three  fish  indicate  the  Church  as  evolved  from 
the  Law  and  the  Spirit.  Peter  swims  over  two  hundred 
cubits,  a  number  that  according  to  Philo  represents  re- 
pentance. (Numerous  other  examples  may  be  seen  in 
his  article  'Gospels'  in  the  Ency.  Bib.)  Schmiedel 
admits  symboUcal  meanings  to  a  certain  extent,  but  says 
that  '  the  entire  contents  of  the  Gospel  do  not  admit  of 
being  derived  from  ideas  alone.'  He  thinks  that  mistaken 
statements  in  the  Gospel  have  arisen  in  the  course  of  oral 
tradition.  It  is  open  to  very  serious  question  whether 
this  can  be  successfully  made  good  in  detailed  application. 
Examples  of  this  type  of  explanation  may  be  found  in 
his  article  'John,  Son  of  Zebedee'  {Ency.  Bib.  2539). 
And  apart  from  this,  it  is  a  sound  principle  that  the  plain 
and  literal  sense  should  not  be  abandoned  for  a  symboUcal, 
and  that  lifelike  touches  must  be  held  to  prove  accurate 
knowledge,  either  directly  communicated  by  an  eye- 
witness in  writing,  or  preserved  faithfully  in  a  good  oral 


MnL]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  806 

tradition,  unless  there  are  cogent  reasons  to  the  contrary. 
If  the  Johannine  date  for  the  Crucifixion  is  correct  (see 
p.  215),  this  is  important  as  showing  that  what  looks 
like  tretnsparent  allegory  may  nevertheless  be  historical 
fact. 

Yet  the  argument  from  the  presence  of  lifelike  details 
does  not  cany  us  so  far  as  its  supporters  often  assert. 
More  reserve  should  be  shown  in  drawing  the  inference 
tiiat  the  author  of  the  document  containing  them  must 
have  been  present  when  the  events  narrated  take  place- 
Vivid  touches  or  a  whole  flood  of  accurate  reminiscences  do 
not  prove  apostohc  authorship.  This  is  perfectly  clear 
from  the  Grospel  of  Mark.  All  that  the  graphic  character 
of  the  narrative  proves  is  that  it  embodies  the  tradition  of 
an  eye-witness,  not  that  the  eye-witness  himself  compiled 
the  narrative.  Now,  if  the  Second  Gospel  cannot  be  proved 
by  these  features  to  be  the  work  of  Peter,  we  cannot  prove 
the  Fourth  Gospel  by  similar  argument  to  be  the  work  of 
John.  In  fact,  direct  apostolic  authorship  is  not  the  real 
point  to  be  maintained ;  it  is  rather  that  the  Grospel  should 
be  proved  to  incorporate  a  reliable  historic  tradition. 
And  all  the  numerous  arguments  which  are  to  be  found  in 
Buch  copiousness  in  our  commentaries  and  special  dis- 
cussions do  not  when  pressed  to  the  utmost  really  carry  us 
further  than  that.  The  strongest  argument  for  direct 
apostolic  authorship  is  the  claim  in  i.  14.  This  claim  is 
corroborated  by  the  internal  evidence  that  has  been  held 
to  prove  authorship  by  an  eye-witness,  but  of  itself  this 
does  not  suffice  to  establish  it.  Still  it  seems  sounder  to 
see  in  the  details  which  have  been  enumerated  genuine 
historical  recollections  rather  than  allegorical  ideas  or  the 
outcome  of  a  whole  series  of  misunderstandings. 

(4)  The  writer  was  an  apostle.  If  he  was  an  eye-witness 
he  can  hardly  have  been  any  one  but  an  apostle,^  for  only 

*  On  the  attempt  to  show  that  the  beloved  diiciple  wm  not  »a  »postl« 
■ee  pp  147  ff. 


JIO      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [oB. 

an  apostle  is  likely  to  have  been  present  at  so  many  different 
scenes,  in  such  various  places  and  at  such  various  times. 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  knowledge  he  exhibits  of  the 
feelings  of  the  disciples,  and  what  they  said  to  each  other. 
Thus  after  the  cleansing  of  the  Temple  we  read :  '  And  his 
disciples  remembered  that  it  was  written.  The  zeal  of  thine 
house  eateth  me  up '  (ii.  17).  Again  when  the  disciples 
returned  from  the  city  they  were  surprised  that  Jesus 
should  be  talking  with  a  woman,  but  did  not  venture  to 
question  Him ;  and  when  He  replied  to  their  offer  of  food 
'  I  have  food  to  eat  of  which  you  do  not  know,'  they 
ask  each  other  whether  any  one  has  brought  Him  food 
(iv.  27-33).  The  writer  is  aware  that  the  garden  in  which 
Jesus  was  arrested  was  one  which  was  known  to  Judas  as 
a  meeting-place  for  Jesus  and  His  disciples  (xviii.  1,  2). 
He  also  reveals  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  thoughts 
and  feelings  of  Jesus.  He  mentions  the  reason  for  His 
leaving  Judaea  (iv.  1),  and  for  withdrawing  from  the 
multitude  after  He  had  fed  it  (vi.  15).  He  explains  that 
His  question  to  Philip  was  for  the  purpose  of  trying 
him,  since  He  knew  Himself  what  He  was  going  to  do 
(vi.  6). 

(5)  The  writer  was  the  apostle  John.  If  he  was  an 
apostle  at  all,  only  John  can  be  thought  of.  Of  the  disciples 
most  intimate  with  Jesus,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  Peter 
is  excluded  by  the  way  in  which  the  Gospel  speaks  ol 
him,  James  by  his  early  death.  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  the  name  of  John  the  apostle  nowhere  occurs, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  was  one  of  the  three  disciples 
nearest  to  Jesus,  and  that  he  occupies  a  prominent  position 
in  the  Synoptists,  in  Acts,  and  in  Paul.  The  sons  of 
Zebedee  are  referred  to,  but  placed  in  a  position  where  no 
one  else  would  have  placed  them,  and  the  names  are  not 
given  (xxi.  2).  In  view  of  the  particularity  with  which 
the  author  specifies  names,  it  is  most  significant  th&ii 
these  names  are  not  mentioned.    And  there  is  one  minutd 


xtil]  the  GOSriL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  811 

indication  which  is  very  striking.  The  author  it  careful 
about  the  exact  identification  of  those  to  whom  he  refers, 
distinguishing  them  from  others  of  the  same  name,  thus 
Simon  Peter,  Judas  Iscariot  and  Judas  not  Iscariot,  Judaa 
the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot,  Nicodemus,  the  same  who  came 
to  Jesus  by  night,  Thomas  who  is  called  Didymus.  But 
he  never  speaks  of  John  the  Baptist  as  the  Synoptic 
tTOspels  do,  but  simply  of  John,  apparently  since  he 
thinks  that  being  himself  the  John  from  whom  his  name- 
sake was  to  be  distinguished,  no  note  of  distinction  is 
required. 

In  looking  back  over  these  indirect  arguments  it  may 
perhaps  be  granted  that  they  are  of  different  degrees  of 
cogency.  That  the  author  was  a  Jew  may  be  asserted 
without  hesitation,  and  that  he  was  a  native  of  Palestine, 
or  at  any  rate  had  lived  long  in  Palestine,  may  be  asserted 
with  almost  equal  confidence,  the  phrase  'high  priest  in 
that  year'  being  altogether  insufficient  to  outweigh  the 
minute  acquaintance  with  Palestine  exhibited  by  the 
author.  Of  the  other  points  it  must  at  present  suffice  to 
say  that  while  taken  in  themselves  they  rather  strongly 
suggest  that  the  author  was  an  eye-witness  and  the  apostle 
John,  yet  they  might  perhaps  be  satisfied  by  a  belief  that 
he  had  access  to  an  exceptionally  good  tradition,  much 
in  the  same  way  as  Mark  had.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  main  question  is  one  of  historical  character 
rather  than  authorship,  and  this  might  be  secured  as  in 
the  case  of  Mark  by  faithful  reproduction  of  a  good 
tradition.  No  doubt  first-hand  evidence  is  better  than 
evidence  at  second  hand.  But  it  would  be  premature 
to  pronounce  an  opinion  till  the  objections  to  the  Johannine 
authorship  have  been  stated  and  examined.  It  should  be 
added,  however,  that  these  objections  do,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  touch  not  only  the  question  of  authorship  but  tiiat 
of  historical  trustworthiness. 


nS      mTRODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [<a, 

OhjectioTis  to  the  Apostolic  Authorship, 

Unfortunately  the  question  of  authorship  is  affected 
seriously  by  theological  considerations.  Those  who  take 
a  purely  humanitarian  view  of  Christ's  Person,  or  disbelieve 
in  the  possibility  of  miracles,  naturally  find  a  difficulty  in 
admitting  that  such  a  work  as  the  Fourth  Gospel  can  have 
come  from  the  hand  of  an  apostle.  Those  for  whom  the 
Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  untrue,  and  who  con- 
sider that  Paul  started  the  Church  down  the  fatal  slope  of 
mythology  by  his  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  will 
naturally  find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  believe  that 
one  who  had  personally  known  Jesus  should  speak  of 
Him  as  the  author  does  in  his  prologue ;  still  more,  that  he 
should  represent  Jesus  as  speaking  of  Himself  as  He  does 
in  the  Grospel.  On  this  point  it  must  suffice  to  quote  the 
words  of  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  moderate  opponents 
of  the  traditional  view.  Weizsacker  says  :  '  It  is  even  a 
greater  puzzle  that  the  apostle,  the  beloved  disciple  of  the 
Gospel,  he  who  reclined  at  table  next  Jesus,  should  have 
come  to  regard  and  represent  his  whole  former  experience 
as  a  life  with  the  incarnate  Logos  of  God.'  After  adding 
that  no  power  of  faith  or  philosophy  can  be  imagined 
great  enough  to  substitute  this  marvellous  picture  of  a 
Divine  Being  for  the  recollection  of  the  real  life,  and  that 
in  Paul's  case  such  a  thing  would  be  possible  since  he  had 
not  known  Jesus  in  His  earthly  life,  he  proceeds  :  '  For 
a  primitive  apostle  it  is  inconceivable.  The  question  is 
decided  here,  and  finally  here'  {Apostolic  Age,  vol.  ii.  p. 
211).  Such  a  consideration  can  have  no  weight  with  those 
who  believe  that  the  Logos  doctrine  was  true  to  fact. 
They  will  be  much  readier  to  admit  that  Jesus  may  have 
spoken  of  Himself  in  such  language  as  the  Fourth  Gospel 
puts  into  His  mouth.  It  is  necessary  to  draw  attention 
to  this  point,  since  an  avowed  or  unavowed  theological 
presupposition  has  in  some  cases  not  a  little  to  do  witli  the 


«vii.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  213 

attitude  adopted  on  critical  problems  in  the  strict  sense  of 
the  term.  A  discussion  of  the  point,  however,  would  be 
improper  here,  since  it  would  involve  desertion  of  criticism 
for  philosophy  and  theology. 

Of  purely  critical  objections  by  far  the  most  important 
are  those  which  rise  out  of  a  comparison  with  the 
Synoptists.  The  Johannine  narrative  is  suspected  to  have 
been  largely  formed  under  the  influence  of  definite  theo- 
logical preconceptions,  or  from  the  exigencies  of  theological 
controversy.  This  explains  the  transference  of  Christ's 
ministry  from  Galilee  to  Judaea,  since  it  was  fitting  that 
the  Messiah  should  do  His  work  in  the  capital  and  not  in 
tiie  provinces.  This  also  accounts  for  the  transformation 
of  the  story  of  the  baptism,  since  it  was  not  fitting  that  the 
Incarnate  Logos  should  be  represented  as  receiving  His 
baptism  and  the  call  to  His  work  at  tiie  hands  of  John. 
Moreover,  John  loses  the  significance  he  possesses  in  the 
Synoptists,  and  is  reduced  merely  to  the  position  of  a 
witness  to  Jesus.  The  date  of  the  Crucifixion  is  altered 
so  that  the  death  of  Jesus  may  coincide  with  the  slaughter 
of  the  Paschal  Lamb.  The  confession  or  self-revelation 
of  Jesus  as  Messiah  is  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry, 
rather  than  kept  a  secret  till  towards  its  close.  The 
developed  Christology  of  the  author  which  originated  with 
Paul  has  become  the  main  theme  of  Christ's  own  speeches. 
The  obstinate  debates  with  the  Jews  of  the  author's  own 
day  have  been  carried  back  to  His  lifetime.  Incidents 
which  seemed  to  compromise  the  divine  dignity  of  the 
Incarnate  Logos  have  been  removed,  such  as  the  agony  at 
Gethsemane,  or  the  cry  of  desertion  on  the  Cross.  The 
miracles  here  are  not  simply  selected  for  their  symbolism, 
but  are  presented  on  a  more  exaggerated  scale  than  in 
the  Synoptists ;  they  are  less  the  outcome  of  compassion 
than  designed  to  exhibit  the  glory  of  Jesus.  The  author 
carefully  guards  Jesus  against  any  yielding  to  the  sug- 
gestions of  others ;  hence  if  He  does  what  has  been  suggested 


214      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [o». 

to  Him,  He  first  refuses  and  then  acts  on  His  own  initiative. 
The  homely  and  pithy  discourses  of  the  Synoptic  Jesus, 
lit  up  by  parable  and  packing  the  deepest  meaning  into 
lucid  and  pregnant  aphorisms,  have  given  place  in  John  to 
mystical  and  monotonous  harangues  in  which  theme  and 
style  and  manner  are  altogether  different. 

It  must,  of  course,  be  recognised  that  there  is  i-  good 
deal  of  weight  in  this  characterisation  of  the  Gospel.  Yet 
it  is  quite  possible  to  suspect  the  writer  of  exaggeration, 
of  conscious  or  unconscious  transformation,  when  what 
we  really  have  to  do  with  is  selection  from  a  peculiar 
point  of  view.  And  in  some  of  the  more  crucial  points 
there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  Johannine  report. 

We  may  begin  with  the  scene  and  duration  of  Christ's 
ministry.  While  the  Synoptic  Gospels  limit  the  ministry 
to  Galilee,  and  bring  Jesus  to  Jerusalem  only  a  few  days 
before  the  Crucifixion,  and,  to  take  a  related  point,  seem 
to  allow  a  year  only  for  its  duration,  the  Fourth  Gospel 
represents  Jesus  as  several  times  visiting  Jerusalem,  and 
makes  His  ministry  extend  to  two  years  and  a  half.  There 
are,  however,  considerations  which  corroborate  John's 
account.  It  is  intrinsically  unlikely  that  Jesus,  conscious 
of  His  Messianic  vocation,  should  be  content  to  work  simply 
in  the  provinces  and  make  no  appeal  to  the  religious  capital 
of  Judaism,  and  the  centre  of  its  constituted  atsthority, 
till  the  last  week  of  His  life.  And  this  presumption  ia 
confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  Sjmoptists  themselves. 
The  lament  of  Jesus,  'How  oft  would  I  have  gathered 
thee,'  His  words,  '  I  sat  daily  in  the  Temple,'  the  crowds 
that  welcomed  Him  on  His  triumphal  entry,  the  daughters 
of  Jerusalem  who  wept  as  He  was  led  to  be  crucified,  the 
begging  of  His  body  by  Joseph  of  Arimathaea,  the  lending 
of  the  ass  on  which  He  entered  Jerusalem,  the  man  with 
the  pitcher  of  water  who  had  made  ready  the  guest-chamber 
for  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  are  all  mentioned  id  the 
Bynoptists,  and  they  prove  that  Christ's  connexion  with 


Stn.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  S15 

jferusalem  was  far  more  intimate  than  a  superficial  reader 
would  have  been  likely  to  suppose.  It  is  in  favour  of 
John's  representation  that  he  connects  Christ's  visits 
with  the  feasts,  since  it  was  at  the  feasts  that  He  would 
most  naturally  visit  Jerusalem.  As  to  the  duration  of  the 
ministry  nothing  can  really  be  urged  against  John's 
narrative.  It  is  a  mistake  to  make  the  Synoptists  our 
standard  here,  for  they  have  no  chronology  to  speak  of. 
Their  accoimt  probably  demands  a  longer  period  than 
their  chronological  statements  might  seem  to  suggest, 
otherwise  the  development  of  events  would  have  to  be 
unnaturally  accelerated.  Lastly,  both  for  locality  and 
chronology  the  Synoptists  are  not  three  authorities,  but 
one  only,  Matthew  and  Luke  simply  deriving  from  Mark. 

The  question  raised  as  to  the  date  of  the  Last  Supper 
and  the  Crucifixion  is  diflBlcult.  John  seems  to  place  them 
a  day  earlier  than  the  Synoptists,  and  thus  to  make  the 
death  of  Jesus  coincide  in  time  with  the  killing  of  the 
Paschal  Lamb.  The  question  is  a  very  complicated  one, 
and  is  to  some  extent  associated  with  the  Paschal  con- 
troversy in  the  second  century.  The  symbolism  of  John 
is  thought  to  have  controlled  his  narrative,  and  the  change 
of  date  to  have  been  due  to  the  wish  to  represent  Jesus  as 
suffering  as  the  true  Paschal  Lamb.  This  view  is  still  taken 
by  some,  but  by  no  means  all  of  those  who  reject  the 
Johannine  authorship.  Schiirer,  Wendt,  Bousset,  Hamack, 
and  apparently  Wellhausen  think  that  the  date  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  is  more  likely  to  be  correct.  And  this  is 
the  better  view  to  take.  Against  what  seem  to  be  definite 
statements  in  the  Synoptists  that  Jesus  partook  of  the 
Passover  on  the  proper  date  and  was  arrested  that  night, 
there  are  several  indications  in  their  own  narrative  that  the 
supper  was  eaten  a  day  before  the  proper  date  of  the 
Passover,  and  that  Jesus  was  already  dead  before  Passover 
Day  had  begun.  These  are  (o)  the  resolve  of  His  enemies 
not  to  take  Him  on  the  feast  day,  (&}  the  illegality  of  ff 


Jtl6      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [oa 

trial  on  that  day,  (c)  the  illegality  of  wearing  arms,  which 
would  have  been  committed  by  the  guards  and  one  of  the 
disciples,  (d)  the  fact  that  Simon  of  Cyrene  was  impressed 
by  the  soldiers  apparently  as  he  was  coming  from  work, 
(c)  the  purchase  of  linen  by  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  and  the 
preparation  of  spices  by  the  women,  (/)  the  words  of  Jesus 
in  Luke  xxii.  15, 16  which  imply  that  His  longing  to  eat  the 
Passover  was  not  fulfilled.  And  this  victorious  confirma- 
tion of  the  Johannine  date  by  the  Synoptists  tiiemselves  is 
still  further  strengthened  by  the  consideration  that  only 
in  this  way  can  we  reasonably  account  for  the  abnormal 
haste  with  which  the  proceedings  were  carried  through. 
It  was  in  order  that  they  might  be  aU  over  before  the 
Paschal  feast  actually  began.  It  is  also  corroborated 
by  Paul's  reference  to  Christ  as  our  Passover  (I  Cor. 
V.7). 

A  difficulty  of  the  most  serious  character  is  raised  by 
the  representation  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  both  as  to  ite 
form  and  content.  In  form  the  Johannine  speeches  are 
abstruse  and  mystical,  long  and  somewhat  monotonous, 
and  written  in  a  peculiar  type  of  phraseology,  which  recurs 
in  the  First  Epistle,  and,  what  is  much  more  surprising, 
in  the  speeches  of  John  the  Baptist.  Much  may  be  said 
in  modification  of  the  sweeping  Judgment,  which  the  facts 
at  first  sight  seem  to  suggest,  that  the  speeches  are  one  and 
all  the  free  composition  of  the  author.  As  Matthew 
Arnold  and  others  have  pointed  out,  when  we  look  more 
closely  into  the  speeches  in  John  they  are  seen  to  abound 
in  Just  the  same  kind  of  pithy  sayings  that  we  find  in  the 
Synoptists.  It  has  been  calculated  that  nearly  a  hundred 
and  fifty  words  are  found  in  the  discourses  of  Christ  which 
are  never  used  by  the  evangelist.  Further,  if  Jesus 
spoke  Aramaic,  we  should  expect  John  to  employ  hia 
habitual  language  in  translating  into  Greek.  It  is  often 
urged  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  contains  discourses  to  the 
cultivated  residents  of  the  capital  or  the  disciples  whom 


rriL]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  217 

He  had  trained,  and  naturally  they  differed  much  from 
tiie  more  popular  discourses  addressed  to  Galilaeans.  This 
can  hardly  be  admitted.  On  the  one  hand,  Jesus  talks 
in  this  way  to  the  woman  of  Samaria  and  in  the  synagogue 
at  Capernaum.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Synoptic  discourses 
deUvered  in  Jerusalem  are  Uke  those  spoken  elsewhere. 
It  is  strange  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  parables  have  dis- 
appeared. Some  allegories  take  their  place,  e.g.  the  vine 
and  its  branches.  Some  of  the  Synoptic  parables  might 
more  fitly  be  called  allegories,  e.g.  the  leaven,  or  the 
mustard  seed ;  and  Luke  has  several  stories  of  a  type  not 
found  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  e.g.  the  Good  Samaritan  and 
the  Prodigal  Son. 

When  every  explanation  has  been  given,  it  remains 
true  that  the  probabihty  that  Jesus  spoke  as  the 
Fourth  Gospel  represents  cannot  be  made  good.  In 
view  of  the  marked  similarity  in  style  between  the 
speeches  of  Jesus  and  the  Baptist,  the  style  of  the  author 
himself  and  that  of  the  First  Epistle,  there  should  be  no 
hesitation  in  recognising  that  the  form  in  which  the  dis- 
courses are  cast  is  due  largely  to  the  evangelist  himself, 
who  has  stamped  everything  with  his  own  idiosyncrasies ; 
though  here,  too,  it  is  easy  to  overstate  the  case.  A  Jewish 
writer  would  naturally  adopt  direct  speech  where  a  Greek 
would  use  indirect,  yet  one  would  not  mean  any  more 
than  the  other  to  be  taken  as  giving  a  verbatim  report, 
but  to  be  expressing  largely  in  his  own  language  the  gist 
of  what  the  speaker  said.  The  subjective  element  in  the 
report  is  probably  larger  than  the  average  reader  would 
imagine.  That  the  author  invented  the  discourses  cannot 
be  maintained,  because  they  contain  so  much  matter  like 
that  in  the  Synoptists,  and  because  they  were  beyond  his 
power,  Jesus  being,  as  Matthew  Arnold  well  brings  out,  so 
much  above  the  heads  of  His  reporters.  But  it  is  probable 
that  the  speeches  owe  their  peculiar  form  to  the  evangelist, 
genuine  sayings  of  Christ  being  woven  into  a  connected 


tl8      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTaMENT       [ok. 

whole,  which  has  passed  through  his  own  mind  and 
received  the  impress  of  his  form  of  speech. 

As  to  the  content  of  the  speeches  there  is  also  a  wide 
difference.  As  a  general  principle  it  may  be  said  at  the 
outset  that  the  probability  is  altogether  in  favour  of  there 
having  been  a  deeper  element  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
which  finding  Uttle  response  among  many,  would  be 
welcomed  by  a  finely  sympathetic  and  receptive  mind. 
It  is  no  doubt  surprising  that  so  much  more  stress  should 
be  placed  by  Jesus  on  His  own  Person  and  the  true  relation 
to  Himself  than  in  the  Sjmoptists,  where  the  stress  is  rather 
on  seeking  the  Kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness.  Yet 
we  have  to  remember  that  the  Sjnioptists  themselves  contain 
numerous  sayings  of  Jesus  which,  while  they  do  not  bear  the 
stamp  of  the  Johannine  vocabulary,  express  substantially 
the  Johannine  Christology. 

The  same  instinct  which  rejects  the  sayings  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  tends  also  to  reject  such  sayings  in  the 
Synoptics.  Yet  the  authenticity  of  some  of  these  cannot 
be  successfully  challenged.  The  saying  which  places 
the  Son  above  the  angels  is  guaranteed  as  authentic 
by  the  confession  of  the  Son's  ignorance,  which  certainly 
could  never  have  been  invented.  Elsewhere  Jesus  claims 
that  a  man  should  surrender  everything  and  sunder 
the  closest  tie  that  he  may  follow  Him.  To  help  the 
suffering  or  to  receive  a  little  child  in  His  name  will 
be  rewarded  as  if  He  had  been  helped  or  received. 
To  receive  Him  is  to  receive  God  who  sent  Him.  Those 
who  confess  Him  before  men  will  be  confessed  by  Him 
before  God.  Prayer  in  His  name  is  rcAvarded  by  His 
presence  with  those  who  pray,  and  the  fulfilment  of  their 
desires  by  God.  He  who  loses  his  life  for  Christ's  sake  shall 
find  it.  K  He  is  David's  son  He  is  also  David's  Lord. 
And  there  is  one  passage  in  particular  which  has  quite  a 
Johannine  ring  :  '  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto  me 
of  my  Father ;    neither  doth  any  one  know  the  Father 


KTitJ  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  tlii 

save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal 
him'  (Matt.  xi.  27,  Luke  x.  22).  In  this  Jesus  claims  to 
stand  in  an  altogether  unique  relation  to  God.  He  is  the 
Son  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other  is ;  it  is  only  the  Father 
who  truly  knows  Him,  He  alone  truly  knows  the  Father, 
nor  can  any  know  the  Father  unless  He  reveals  Him 
to  them.  If  Jesus  was  conscious  of  occupying  this 
relation  to  God,  perhaps  we  ought  rather  to  be  surprised 
that  the  Synoptists  represent  Him  as  speaking  of  it  so 
rarely  than  that  it  is  so  frequent  a  theme  in  John.  More- 
over, in  two  highly  important  sayings  the  Synoptists  bring 
the  ground  of  salvation  into  the  closest  relation  with 
Christ's  Person  and  Death.  *  The  Son  of  man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  Ufa 
a  ransom  for  many ' ;  and  *  This  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant 
which  is  shed  for  many,'  Matthew  adds  '  unto  remission 
of  sins.' 

It  is  true  that  the  Synoptists  report  no  definite 
claim  of  Jesus  to  pre-existence,  while  such  claims  are 
prominent  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  even  if  we  do  not 
base  anything  on  the  supposition  that  the  pre-existence 
-^f  the  Messiah  was  already  a  doctrine  in  some  Jewish 
schools  it  was  certainly  taught  by  Paul  and  the  author 
of  Hebrews,  and  since  as  Weizsacker  allows  we  find  '  no 
trace  of  any  opposition  encountered  by  this  doctrine  in 
primitive  apostoHc  circles,'  a  good  case  can  be  made  out 
for  the  view  that  it  was  really  taught  by  Christ  Himself. 
Indeed,  the  dignity  ascribed  to  His  Person  in  the  Synoptic 
sayings  is  so  lofty  that  pre-existence  might  most  naturally 
be  postulated  of  such  a  Being.  Lastly,  it  is  difficult  to 
overrate  the  significance  of  the  fact  tha*  the  Christology 
of  Paul  created  no  controversy  such  as  raged  fiercely 
about  his  doctrine  of  the  Law. 

Another  difference  between  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  Ihe 
Synoptists  relates  to  the  development  of  the  revelation 
and  recognition  of  Jesus  as  Messiah.    Here  it  is  said  thai 


no      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca 

in  the  earliest  tradition  Jesus,  though  certain  of  Hia 
Messiahship  from  the  outset,  did  not  for  a  long  time  advance 
the  claim  to  be  Messiah  ;  that  the  disciples  did  not  at  first 
suspect  Him  to  be  the  Messiah,  as  is  shown  by  the  question 
'  Who  then  is  this  that  even  the  winds  and  sea  obey  Him  ?  ' 
and  by  Peter's  confession  at  Caesarea  Philippi ;  further 
that  even  when  the  disciples  reahsed  it  they  were  for- 
bidden to  make  it  known,  so  that  only  at  the  end  is  it 
proclaimed  to  the  multitude  and  to  the  Sanhedrin ;  and 
finally  that  John  the  Baptist  first  suspected  Him  to  be 
the  Messiah  when  he  was  in  prison.  As  against  this  the 
Fourth  Gospel  represents  Jesus  in  the  narrative  of  the 
cleansing  of  the  Temple  as  adopting  the  Messianic  functions 
at  the  outset,  the  disciples  as  recognising  His  Messiahship, 
and  John  the  Baptist  as  recognising  it  even  before  they  do. 
This  sketch,  which  follows  Schiirer's  discussion,  is  open 
to  some  criticism.  The  '  earliest  tradition '  is  not  that 
of  the  Synoptists  as  a  whole,  but  the  oldest  stratum  in 
them.  This  should  be  recognised,  since  there  are  elements 
in  the  Synoptists  which  look  somewhat  in  the  direction 
of  John.  In  the  next  place  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
question  in  Mark  iv.  41  necessarily  implies  that  the 
disciples  could  not  then  have  beUeved  Him  to  be  the 
Messiah,  unless  we  assume  that  they  expected  the  Messiah 
to  be  able  to  control  the  fury  of  the  sea  and  storm.  More- 
over in  Mark  the  demoniacs  from  the  outset  confess  Him 
as  the  Holy  One  of  God,  the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Son  of  the 
Most  High  God.  It  cannot  therefore  have  been  a  view 
which  dawned  on  the  disciples  only  later.  Peter's  con- 
fession, it  is  true,  makes  the  impression  that  here  we  have 
his  definitely  formed  conviction  expressed  for  the  first 
time.  And  according  to  the  narrative  in  Matt,  xi.,  Luke 
vii.,  John's  question  does  seem  to  be  one  of  expectation 
rather  than  despondency,  since  it  is  inspired  by  the  news 
of  Christ's  mighty  works,  which  he  has  heard  in  prison. 
This,  however,  involves  a  sceptical  attitude  to  the  narra* 


rviL]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  S81 

tive  in  Matt.  ill.  14,  15,  which,  to  be  sure,  is  not  foond 
in  Mark  or  Luke.  Psychologically  there  is  no  serious 
difficulty  in  the  usual  view  that  John  in  prison  had  a  more 
despondent  outlook  than  when  he  was  in  full  career,  and 
the  methods  of  Jesus  may  well  have  seemed  too  slow  and 
gentle  for  one  whose  fan  was  in  His  hand.  And  the  reply 
of  Jesus,  'Blessed  is  he  who  findeth  not  occasion  of  stumbling 
in  me,'  gains  much  greater  significance  if  John  had  sent  to 
Him  in  a  moment  of  despondency. 

On  the  other  side,  the  earliness  of  the  Messianic  de- 
velopment in  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  perhaps  overstated. 
The  cleansing  of  the  Temple  need  not  involve  anything 
more  than  might  have  been  accomplished  by  an  Old 
Testament  Prophet ;  it  does  not  necessarily  assert  a 
Messianic  claim.  It  is  true  that  a  serious  difficulty  is 
created  by  the  fact  that  the  cleansing  is  placed  by  the 
Synoptists  almost  immediately  before  His  death.  It  is 
not  Ukely  that  there  were  two  cleansings,  and  the 
Synoptic  version  has  in  its  favour  that  it  precipitates 
the  crisis,  and  that  it  thus  seems  to  be  an  integral 
part  of  the  development  as  conceived  by  them.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  admit  numerous  visits  to  Jerusalem, 
there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favour  of  John's  account  which 
at  first  sight  appears  to  be  particularly  vulnerable.  It 
is  not  probable  that  Jesus  saw  this  desecration  of  the 
Temple  again  and  again  during  His  ministry  and  then 
acted  only  at  the  last.  The  action  bears  rather  the 
impress  of  springing  out  of  His  first  contact  with  the  evil, 
after  He  had  become  conscious  of  His  vocation.  The 
Synoptic  narrative  suggests  that  matters  moved  with 
astonishing  rapidity.  Naturally,  recognising  only  one 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  the  writers  were  compelled  to  place  the 
cleansing  there,  if  they  narrated  it  at  all.  If  the  Johannine 
narrative  implies  that  Jesus  intimated  His  death  and 
resurrection  in  the  discussion  that  ensued,  it  would  no 
doubt  be  natural  to  see  in  this  the  evidence  for  its  original 


ai      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT      [ca 

connexion  with  the  Passion  visit.  This,  however,  is  by 
no  means  necessary. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  we  find  Andrew,  PhiUp,  and 
Nathanael  confessing  Jesus  as  Messiah  or  Son  of  God  quit© 
early,  even  before  His  first  miracle.  Yet  we  must  beware 
of  reading  too  much  into  this.  We  need  to  distinguish 
clearly  between  what  Messiah  meant  to  them  and  what  it 
meant  to  Jesus.  It  by  no  means  necessarily  implied  in 
their  case  a  lofty  view  of  His  Person  or  Mission.  There 
were  numerous  Messianic  movements  in  this  period. 
That  Jesus  revealed  Himself  to  the  Samaritan  woman  is 
not  so  surprising  as  it  might  seem,  since  the  risks  involved  in 
a  premature  announcement  were  shght  in  Samaria.  The 
Baptist's  language  about  Jesus  in  John  is  certainly 
astonishing.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  the  account 
given  by  Schurer  of  the  presentation  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
is  not  complete.  Not  so  long  before  His  death  that 
Gospel  represents  the  people  as  urging  Jesus  to  keep  them 
no  longer  in  suspense,  but  to  tell  them  plainly  whether  He 
is  the  Messiah  or  not.  At  an  earlier  period  in  chap.  vii. 
fche  people  are  still  disputing  His  real  character.  It  is  pro- 
bably true  that  the  evangelist  read  back  to  some  extent 
the  completed  revelation  into  the  earUer  period,  and  im- 
parted a  certain  precision  to  the  utterances  in  it  which  they 
did  not  really  possess.  After  the  lapse  of  many  years  even 
an  eye-witness  might  blur  the  lines  of  development  and 
fail  to  recall  the  exact  movement  in  all  its  sharp  precision. 

The  silence  of  the  Synoptists  on  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
is  a  real  difficulty  which  may  be  mitigated,  but  has  never 
been  satisfactorily  explained.  It  is  true  that  they  give 
very  little  Judaean  incident,  yet  Luke  knows  about  Martha 
and  Mary.  It  is  also  true  that  they  relate  narratives  of 
the  raising  of  the  dead,  and  our  modem  grading  of  wonders 
must  not  be  carried  back  to  them.  Yet  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  regarded  the  spirit  of  the  dead  man  as  hovering  about 
his  body  till  the  third  day  after  death,  and  as  then  going  to 


XTii.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  £21 

Sheol,  indicates  that  they  would  have  seen  in  the  re^j.-rec- 
tion  of  Lazarus  when  he  had  been  dead  four  days  something 
much  more  striking  than  in  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter, 
or  of  the  young  man  at  Nain.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
confidence  with  which  the  omission  by  the  Synoptists  is 
paraded  as  completely  discrediting  the  historical  character 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  ^  is,  in  view  of  their  one-sided 
character  and  their  attitude  to  miracles  in  general,  a 
violent  exaggeration.  The  story  of  John  bears  such  clear 
marks  of  historicity  that  Renan,  who  entirely  rejected  the 
miracle,  but  whose  historic  sense  and  literary  tact  com- 
pelled him  to  admit  a  genuine  element  of  history,  was 
driven  to  the  conclusion  that  a  fraud  was  palmed  off  on 
the  people  by  Lazarus  and  his  family,  Jesus  Himself  being 
a  party  to  it.  This  needs  no  discussion,  but  the  theory 
is  a  striking  testimony  to  the  impression  of  truthfulness 
made  by  the  narrative. 

Apart  from  the  objections  derived  from  a  comparison 
with  the  Synoptists,  there  are  others.  One  is  that  a 
Judaising  apostle  should  have  taken  so  free  an  attitude 
with  reference  to  the  Law.  Really  we  know  very  Uttle  of 
John's  Judaising  tendencies.  But  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  must  have  seemed  to  him  a  divine  judgment 
on  Judaism,  and  residence  in  Asia  would  conduce  to  a 
more  hberal  view.  It  is  thought  further  that  a  Galilaean 
fisherman  cannot  have  written  a  work  at  once  so  artistic 
and  profound.  But  the  accident  of  a  man's  calling  in 
hfe  may  prove  nothing  as  to  natural  gifts  (it  was  a  tinker 
who  wrote  The  Pilgrim's  Progress),  and  John  had  been 
trained  by  Jesus  Himself.  If  he  is  to  be  identified  with 
the  beloved  disciple  and  the  testimony  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  be  ra?eived  that  Jesus  entertained  for  him  a  special 
affection,  this  points  to  a  nature  which  He  felt  to  be  in 

1  See,  for  example,  Wernle's  sweeping  statement :  '  That  the  three  Synop- 
txBts  mention  not  a  syllable  of  this  greatest  of  all  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  ii 
enongh,  quite  by  itself,  to  destroy  all  faith  in  the  Johannine  tradition'  iDi$ 
Quellen  des  I^eru  Jesu  (1904),  p.  24). 


ai4      INTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [cm, 

sympathetic  harmony  with  His  own  to  a  degree  surpassing 
tiiat  of  the  others.  And  the  style  is  not  artistic,  or  that  of 
a  practised  writer,  nor  does  the  author  write  as  one  who 
had  received  a  scholastic  training.  These  and  similar 
objections  rest  on  assumptions  rather  than  facts. 

Results. 
In  looking  back  on  the  various  lines  of  evidence  dis- 
cussed, the  present  writer  feels  it  difficult  to  share  the 
confidence  of  the  extremists  on  one  side  or  the  other.  The 
external  evidence  favours  though  it  does  not  demand 
Johannine  authorship.  The  internal  evidence  seems  to 
prove  conclusively  that  the  author  had  access  to  an 
exceptionally  rich  treasure  of  genuine  historical  reminis- 
cences, whether  stored  in  his  own  memory  of  scenes  at  which 
he  had  been  present,  or  derived  from  an  eye-witness. 
Accordingly  we  may  reconstruct  the  circumstances  and 
situation  which  gave  rise  to  the  Gospel  somewhat  in  the 
following  way.  The  apostle  John  came  to  Ephesus  late 
in  the  sixties,  Uving  there  till  towards  the  close  of  the  first 
century,  and  gathering  about  him  a  band  of  disciples  to 
whom  he  was  in  the  habit  of  imparting  his  reminiscences 
of  the  Ufe  of  Jesus.  He  Uved  in  an  intellectual  atmosphere 
wholly  different  from  that  familiar  to  him  in  Palestine, 
and,  if  not  for  himself,  at  least  for  his  disciples,  was  forced 
to  take  up  a  definite  attitude  towards  it.  Within  the 
Church  the  Docetic  heresy  was  working  havoc,  and 
without  it  there  was  an  unfriendly  empire  and  a  bitterly 
hostile  Judaism.  Possibly  too  he  may  have  had  to  do 
with  followers  of  John  the  Baptist,  who  pitted  their 
prophet  against  the  prophet  of  Nazareth.^    There  was 

1  This  has  been  argued  with  great  ori£<inality  and  acuteness,  but  also  with 
much  violent  exegesis,  by  Baldensperger  in  his  Der  Prolog  des  vierten 
BvangeUem,  1898.  His  views  have  met  with  little  acceptance,  though  the 
brilliance  and  suggestivenees  of  his  discussion  have  been  amply  recognised. 
Pfleiderer  ftsd  E.  F.  Scott  think  he  has  made  out  his  point  for  the  first  three 
chapters  of  the  Gospel.  On  the  other  hand,  see  Jtilicher  aiid  Loisy,  also  an 
trticle  in  the  Journal  of  Biblieal  Literature,  toL  jol.,  1901,  part  i.,  by 
Profeaaor  C.  W.  fUsheU. 


XVII.]  THE  GOSPEL  AOOORDING  TO  JOHN  826 

also  the  Alexandrian  philosophy,  and  penetrating  every- 
thing the  subtle  influence  of  Greek  thought. 

Over  against  this  world  which  lay  in  the  evil  one  the 
apostle  stood  firm  in  the  consciousness  that  he  was  in 
possession  of  the  absolute  truth.  For  this  truth  he 
fought  directly  in  his  Epistle,  indirectly  in  his  GospeL 
The  latter  work  had  primarily  an  apologetic  interest ; 
it  was  not  so  much,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  to  give  in- 
formation about  Jesus,  as  to  create  the  beUef  that 
Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  thus  bringing  his  readers  to 
eternal  life.  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  in  part  or  wholly, 
were  already  known  to  him ;  it  was  not  necessary  to 
go  over  their  ground  again,  unless  it  served  his  pur- 
pose specially  to  do  so.  At  the  same  time  he  was 
able  to  rectify  their  limitations.  The  selection  of  his 
material,  however,  was  dominated  in  the  main  by  the 
situation  with  which  he  was  confronted.  He  seeks  to  set 
Christianity  in  a  favourable  hght  before  the  empire ; 
the  kingdom  of  Jesus  is  not  of  this  world,  and  Pilate  would 
gladly  have  acquitted  Him.  Against  the  Docetists  he 
insists  on  the  reaUty  of  the  Incarnation.  His  Logos  becomes 
flesh,  eats  and  drinks,  sits  weary  by  the  well,  groans  in 
spirit,  falters  at  the  prospect  of  the  Passion.  From  His 
pierced  side  comes  forth  blood  and  water.  His  risen  body 
bears  the  print  of  the  nails  and  the  wound  in  the  side. 
The  Greeks  come  to  Jesus,  and  the  prologue  strikes  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  the  key  for  the  whole  Gospel. 
The  author's  sharpest  polemic  is  directed  against  the  Jews, 
who  are  shown  as  persistently  opposing  Jesus,  and  from 
quite  early  in  His  ministry  planning  His  death.  He  plies 
them  with  the  argument  from  the  Old  Testament,  from  the 
witness  of  John  the  Baptist,  from  the  miracles  of  Jesus. 
If  they  do  not  receive  this  accumulated  testimony  it  is 
because  they  are  children  of  the  devil  and  have  no  true 
knowledge  of  God.  If  he  had  to  meet  the  claims  made  for 
the  Baptist  by  his  followers,  he  did  to  by  putting  the 

P 


226      INTBODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT       [ca. 

Baptist  in  his  right  place,  as  not  the  Light  Himself,  bat 
witnessing  to  the  Light.  There  is,  however,  no  trace  of 
any  tendency  to  disparage  the  Baptist ;  upon  his  testimony 
to  Jesus  the  evangelist  lays  the  greatest  stress. 

The  apologetic  and  largely  polemical  purpose  of  the 
Gospel  accounts  for  much  that  strikes  one  as  peculiar. 
That  the  conditions  reacted  on  the  evangelist's  representa- 
tion of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  that  subsequent 
meditation  may  have  mingled  with  the  report,  that  the 
stages  of  historical  movement  have  not  been  distinguished 
in  all  their  original  sharpness,  is  no  cause  for  wonder. 
But  we  should  make  a  great  mistake  if  we  imagined  that 
the  Gospel  was  merely  a  romance  of  the  Logos,  freely 
invented  as  a  vehicle  of  ideas.  It  embodies  a  large  number 
of  most  precious  reminiscences,  though  the  interest  which 
has  dictated  their  preservation  was  largely  theological 
and  apologetic  rather  than  historical. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  no  account  has  been  taken 
of  the  problem  whether  the  Gospel  is  a  unity.  That  it  is 
so  has  been  and  still  remains  the  prevalent  opinion  of 
critics  of  all  classes.  In  spite  of  this  there  have  been 
several  protests  of  which  the  most  noteworthy  must  receive 
a  brief  mention.  One  of  the  best  worked  out  partition 
theories  is  that  of  Wendt.  This  scholar  considers  that 
the  apostle  John  compiled  a  collection  of  discourses  of 
Jesus.  The  materials  are  substantially  authentic,  but  the 
form  and  language  are  largely  due  to  the  apostle  himself. 
This  work  was  subsequently  incorporated  in  our  present 
Gospel  by  a  writer  who  added  the  narrative  sections  for 
which  he  had  some  good  traditions,  but  which  is  on  the 
whole  of  secondary  historical  value.  Unfortunately  an 
examination  of  this  theory  would  demand  a  detailed  dis- 
cussion such  as  it  is  not  possible  to  give  in  our  space. 
On  the  general  distinction  between  narrative  and  dis- 
course it  may  be  said  that  the  latter  frequently  creates 
the  greater  difficulty  for  defenders  of  the  authenticity. 


xni.]  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN  227 

Moreover,  it  is  questionable  if  this  line  of  demaxcation  is 
the  most  natural  one  for  an  analytic  theory  to  take. 

In  a  work  entitled  Expansions  and  Alterations  in  the 
Fourth  Oospd  Wellhausen  argued  both  for  transpositions 
and  later  insertions.  The  view  that  chap.  v.  should  be 
placed  after  chap.  vi.  is  an  old  one,  and  in  the  present  writer's 
Judgment  almost  certainly  correct,  and  there  are  some 
minor  transpositions  of  which  the  same  may  be  said.  The 
most  important  question  touches  chaps,  zv.-xvii.  It  had 
been  suggested  by  Pfleiderer  that  these  chapters  were  a 
later  addition  by  the  evangelist  himself.  Wellhausen 
considered  that  they  were  added  by  a  later  writer  who 
reinstated  the  idea  of  the  Second  Coming  which  had  been 
set  aside  by  the  author  in  the  original  text  of  chap.  xiv. 
It  is  certainly  difficult  to  suppose  that  they  could  stand  ii^ 
their  present  position,  but  unless  we  take  with  undue 
seriousness  the  divergence  from  the  rest  of  the  Gospel 
which  Wellhausen  detects  in  them,  the  difficulty  may 
readily  be  solved  by  transposition  of  chapters  xv.  and  xvi. 
Two  long  chapters  are  certainly  not  in  place  after  the 
signal  for  departure  has  been  given  in  xiv.  31.  It  is 
therefore  likely  that  chap.  xiv.  should  connect  immedi- 
ately with  chap,  xvii.,  and  xv.  and  xvi.  be  inserted  at  an 
earlier  point,  perhaps  after  xiii.  31o.  In  his  later  work 
on  the  Grospel  of  John  Wellhausen  has  advanced  to  a  much 
more  complicated  theory.  He  finds  in  our  present  Gospel 
ttie  result  of  a  long  literary  process,  the  stages  of  which 
can  at  present  be  only  imperfectly  recovered.  In  the 
development  of  tiiis  theory  he  has  had  the  advantage  of 
frequent  consultation  with  E.  Schwartz,  who  has  worked 
out  his  own  theory  of  discontinuities  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Gottingische  Gdehrte 
Nachrichten.  A  discussion  of  these  theories  is  also  impos- 
sible, and  it  must  suffice  to  have  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  very  eminent  scholars  have  definitely  broken  with 
the  traditional  view  both  of  critics  and  apolc^ists  that  the 


228      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Fourth  Grospel  is  a  unity.  The  fundamental  objection 
to  partition  theories  is  the  homogeneousness  of  the  Gospel 
in  style  and  standpoint. 

Whether,  however,  we  should  attribute  the  twenty-first 
chapter  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel  is  a  question  on  which 
defenders  of  the  unity  are  divided.  Apparently  it  forms 
no  part  of  the  original  plan,  and  the  Gospel  comes  to  its 
natural  close  with  chapter  xx.  We  have,  however,  no 
trace  of  the  circulation  of  the  Gospel  without  this  chapter, 
and  although  there  are  diflBculties  in  the  way  of  attributing 
it  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  these  are  perhaps  su£Eiciently 
met  if  we  assume  that  some  interval  lay  between  ita 
composition  and  that  of  the  preceding  chapters. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


NoTB. — ^The  abbreTiations  indicating  the  seriwi  to 
which  a  commentary  belongs  are  appended  to  the  fall 
titles  of  the  series  in  the  opening  list,  so  that  each  may 
be  readily  identified.  It  may  be  added  that  important 
discussions  are  often  contained  in  periodicals,  both 
British  and  foreign. 

Ihtroduotions  to  the  New  Testament  by  8.  Davidson  (3rd 
ed.),  Bleek  (last  German  edition  polemically  edited  by 
Mangold),  B.  Weiss  (E.  Tr.,  3rd  German  ed.  1897),  Salmon, 
Dods,  MHUlymont,  Holtzmann  (3rd  ed,),  Bacon,  Jiilicher  (E. 
Tr.  1904,  eth  German  ed.  1906),  Zahn  (3rd  ed.,  translation 
annoimced).  Pullan,  The  Books  of  the  N.T. ;  Adeney  in  A 
Biblical  Introduction,  by  Bennett  and  Adeney;  von  Soden, 
Hittory  of  Early  Christian  Literature ;  G.  Cnrrie  Martin,  The 
BooJa  of  the  N.T. ;  Wrede,  Th£  Origin  of  the  N.T. ;  Reuss, 
History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  N.  T. ;  Clemen, 
JSntstehung  de$  N.T. ;  Sanday,  Inspiration;  Lightfoot,  Essays 
an  Supematvral  Religion,  Biblical  Essays ;  Harnack,  Chrono- 
logic der  aUchristlichen  Literatur ;  Dictionaries  of  the  Bible  by 
Smith  and  ELastings,  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  Standard  Bible 
Dictionary,  Hastings'  one  vol.  Bible  Dictionary,  Murray's  one 
vol.  Bible  Dictionary,  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the 
Gospels ;  Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Age  by  Weizsacker, 
M'Giffert,  Bartlet,  Eopes;  also  Pfleiderer,  Urchristentum  (2nd 
ed.),  E.  Tr.  Frimitive  Christianity  (in  progress),  and  Wernle's 
Beginnings  of  Christianity.  Among  commentaries  on  the  whole 
of  the  New  Testament,  the  following  may  be  mentioned :  Meyer, 
Kommcntar  iiber  das  N.T.  (E.  Tr.  contains  work  of  Meyer  and 
his  colleagues ;  the  later  German  editions  have  been  completely 
ft'Writien  h^  other  editora) ;  Hand-commentar  zum  N.T.  (ff.C.) ', 

m 


290      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

International  Critical  Commentary  (I.C.C.) ;  Cambridge  Bibh 
(C.B.) ;  Cambridge  Greek  Testament  (C.G.T.) ;  Expositor's  Greek 
Testament  (E.G.T.) ;  Century  Bible  (Cent.  B.) ;  Westminster 
Commentaries  ( I4^est.  Com.) ;  International  Handbooks  to  the 
N.T.  (LH.);  Zahn,  Kommentar  turn  N.T.;  J.  Weiss,  Die 
Scriften  des  N.T.  {S.N.T.);  Lietzmann,  Handbuch  zum  N.T. 
{H.N.T.);  Moffatt'a  Historical  New  Testament  (a  new  translation 
of  the  New  Testament  with  books  arranged  in  presumed  chrono- 
logical order,  contains  much  valuable  critical  matter). 

Of  the  above  the  most  useful  Introductions  at  present  for 
the  English  reader  are  those  by  Jiilicher  and  Adeney.  Zahn'a 
Introduction  is  a  work  of  immense  erudition,  and  a  very  impor- 
tant statement  of  the  conservative  case.  The  leading  stetement 
of  the  more  advanced  critical  view  in  German  is  Holtzmann's 
Introduction.  A  new  edition  is  badly  needed,  but  its  place  is 
to  some  extent  supplied  by  the  author's  commentaries,  articles, 
and  his  Neutestamentliche  Theologies  a  second  edition  of  which 
has  been  long  announced. 


CHAPTER  n 

Ok  thk  Paulinb  Epistles. — Godet,  Introduction  to  the 
N.T. :  The  Pauline  Epistles ;  Knowling,  The  Witness  of  the 
Epistles  and  The  Testimony  of  St.  Paul  to  Christ ;  Clemen, 
Dit  Chronologie  der  paulinischen  Brief  e  and  Die  Einheitlickkeit 
der  paulinischen  Briefe;  Findlay,  T/ie  Epistles  of  Paul  the 
Apostle;  Shaw,  The  Pauline  Epistles;  R.  Scott,  The  Pauline 
Epistles.  The  Lives  of  Paul  also  contain  as  a  rule  critical 
discussions  on  the  Epistles :  Bacon's  Story  of  St.  Paul,  Clemen's 
Paulus,  and  Weinel's  St.  Paul  are  the  most  noteworthy  of  recent 
works ;  of  the  rest  it  may  suffice  to  mention  those  by  Cony- 
beare  and  Howson,  Lewin,  Farrar,  Sabatier,  Ramsay. 

On  thb  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. — Commentaries 
byBomemann  (in  Meyer),  P.  Schmidt,  Schmiedel  {H.G.),  Findlay 
(C.G.T.),  Drummond  (I.E.),  Wohlenberg  (in  Zahn),  Lightfoot 
(in  Notes  on  Epistles  of  St.  Paul),  Adeney  {Cent.  B.),  G. 
Milligan,  Lueken  (S.N.T.) ;  Askwith,  An  Introduction  to  the 
Thessalonian  Epistles;  Wredei,  Die  Echtheit  de*  zweiten  The*' 
salonicher-bri^i. 


BIBUOOBAPHT  SU 


CHAPTER  in 


Commentaries  by  Lightfoot,  Sieffert  (in  Meyer),  Lipsiua 
(ff.C.),  Beet,  Perowne  (C.B.),  Ramsay,  Adeney  {Cent.  B.), 
Zahn,  Drummond  {I.H.),  Rendall  (KG.T.),  Bousset  (S.KT.)  ; 
Holsten,  Das  Evangelium  des  Paulus  I.  On  the  locality  of 
the  Galatian  Churches,  in  addition  to  the  commentaries,  Ramsay, 
Church  tn  the  Roman  Empire,  Studia  Bihlica,  vol.  iv.,  St.  Paul 
the  Traveller,  Cities  of  St.  Paul ;  Askwith,  The  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians)  Steinmann,  Die  Ahfasaungszeit  des  GakUerbriefes, 
Der  L$terkreu  de*  Galaterbrie/es: 


CHAPTER  IV 

Commentaries  on  both  Epistles :  Heinrici  (in  Meyer^ 
Schmiedel  {H.C.),  Godet,  Beet,  Drummond  {I.E.),  Massie 
{Cent.  B.),  Bachmann  (in  Zahn),  Bousset  {S.Ii^T.),  Lietz- 
mann  {H.N.T.),  Heinrici  (distinct  from  comm.  in  Meyer);  Com- 
mentaries on  1  Cor.  by  Evans  {Speaker),  Edwards,  Findlay 
{E.G.T.),  Lias  {C.B.),  Goudge  {West.  Com.),  Lightfoot  (in 
Notes  on  Epistles  of  St.  Paul) ;  on  2  Cor.  by  Waite  {Speaker), 
Bernard  {E.G.T.),  Plummer  {C.G.T.).  Hausrath,  Der  Vier- 
Capitel-hrief  dts  Paulus  an  die  Korvnther ;  J.  H.  Kennedy,  The 
Second  and  Third  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 


CHAPTER  V 

Commentaries  by  B.  Weiss  (in  Meyer),  Lipsius  {H.C.\ 
Godet,  Oltramare,  GiflFord  {Speaker),  Beet,  Moule  {C.B.\ 
Lightfoot  (in  Notes  on  Epistles  of  St.  Paul),  Sanday  and 
Headlam  {I.C.C),  Denney  {E.G.T.),  Drunimond  {I.E.),  Garvie 
{Cent.  B.),  Jiilicher  {S.N.T.),  Lietzmann  {H.N.T.).  Hurt, 
Prolegomena  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  the 
Ephesians ;  Lightfoot^  Biblical  Essays,  ^.  287-384  (incinding 
•D  article  by  Hort). 


832      INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER  VI 

Commentaries  on  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  Phile- 
mon, by  E.  Haupt  (in  Meyer),  Moule  (C.B.),  O.  Cone  (I.E.), 
Q.  C.  Martin  (Gent.  B.),  P.  Ewald  (in  Zahn)  Beet,  Lueken, 
{S.N.T.).  On  Ephesians,  Colossians,  and  Philemon,  by  von 
Soden  {E.G.),  Oltramare.  On  Ephesians  and  Colossians, 
T.  K.  Abbott  (I.C.G.).  On  Colossians  and  Philemon, 
Lightfoot,  Lukyn  Williams  {G.G.T.).  On  Philippians  and 
Philemon,  Vincent  (I.G.G.).  On  Ephesians,  Macpherson, 
Klopper,  Salmond  {B.G.T.),  J.  A.  Robinson,  Westcott,  Lightfoot 
(in  Notes  on  Epistles  of  St.  Patd,  on  Eph.  i.  1-14).  On 
Philippians,  B.  Weiss,  Lightfoot,  Lipsius  (E.G.),  Klopper, 
Monle  {G.G.T.),  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  {E.G.T.).  On  Colossians, 
Klopper,  Peake  (E.G.T.). 

Holtzmann,  Kritik  der  Fpheser-  und  Kolosserbriefe  (examined 
by  von  Soden  in  Jahrh.  fiir  prot.  Theol.  for  1885) ;  Hort, 
Prolegomena  to  St.  Paul's  Epistiet  to  the  Roma/M  a/nd  Ephesians. 


CHAPTER  Vn 

Commentaries  by  Holtzmann,  B.  Weiss  (in  Meyer),  von 
Soden  {E.G.),  Bernard  (G.G.T.),  Lilley,  O.  Cone  {I.E.), 
Horton  {Gent.  B.),  Kohler  {8.N.T.). 


CHAPTER  Vm 

Commentaries  by  Bleek,  Delitzsch,  B.  Weiss  (in  Meyer), 
von  Soden  (E.G.),  Westcott,  A.  B.  Davidson,  O.  Cone 
{I.E.),  Farrar  {G.G.T.),  Peake  {Gmt.  B.),  HoUmann  {S.N.T.). 
Works  on  the  Theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  by 
Riehm,  M^n^goz,  Bruce,  G.  Milligan,  contain  discussious  of 
the  critical  problems.  Wrede,  Das  literarische  Rdisel  det 
Eehrderhriffs ;  Harnack's  theory  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Neutest. 
Wissenschaft  for  1900 ;  of.  J.  Rendel  EEarris,  Side-Lights  on  Nets 
Testament  Research,  Lectoie  v. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


CHAPTER  IX 


Commentaries  by  Beyschlag  (in  Meyer),  yon  Soden  {n.C.\ 
Plumptre  {G.B.),  Carr  {C.G.T.),  J.  B.  Mayor,  Knowling {West. 
Com.),  Bennett  (Cent  £.),  Hollmann  (S.N.T.). 

Spitta,  Zwr  Geschichte  tmd  Litteratv/r  de»  Urchristentums, 
vol.  u. ;  Massebieau,  L'^tre  de  Jacques  est-dle  I'oeuvre  d'vn 
Chretien  f 

CHAPTER  X 

Commentaries  by  Eiihl  (in  Meyer),  von  Soden  (ff.C),  Bigg 
(I.C.C.),  O.  Cone  (IH.),  Plumptre  {C.B.),  Bennett  {Cmt.  B.% 
Usteri,  Gunkel  {S.If.T.),  Hort  (on  L  1— ii  17>. 


CHAPTER  XI 

Commentaries  by  Kiihl  (in  Meyer),  von  Soden  (ff.C.\  Bigg 
{I.G.C.),  Plumptre  (C.B.),  Cone  (I.E.),  Bennett  {Cent.  B.\ 
Hollmann  {S.KT.),  Mayor. 

Spitta,  l)0r  noette  Br^f  da  Fetrus  tmd  der  Brief  des  Judas. 


CHAPTER  Xn 

On  the  Four  Qospels. — Bavir,  Die  Evangelien;  Weizs&cker, 
Untersiichvngen  iU>er  die  evangelische  Geschichte;  Westcott, 
Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gonitis ;  Sanday,  The 
Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  The  Life  of  Christ  in  Recent 
Research  j  Cone,  Gospel  Criticism  cmd  Historical  Christianity ; 
Wright,  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  Some  New 
Testament  Problems ;  Godet,  The  Collection  of  the  Four  Gospels 
and  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew ;  Wemle,  Sources  of  our  Knouh 
ledge  of  the  Life  of  Christ  j  J.  A.  Robinson,  The  Study  of  the 
Gospels;  Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents;  Bur- 
kitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission ;  Jiilicher,  Neue 
Linien  in  der  Kritik  des  evangelischen  Vberlieferung.  Dis- 
cussions on  the  'sources'  in  the  various  scientific  Lives  ol 
Jesus. 


234      INTEODUOTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

On  the  Synoptic  Gospels. — Commentaries  by  B.  Weiss  (in 
Meyer),  Holtzmann  {H.G.\  Bruce  {B.G.T.),  Gary  (I.K),  J. 
Weiss  (S.N.T.),  Loisy.  B.  Weiss,  Das  Marcusevangelium  und 
teine  tynoptischen  Parallelen,  Das  Matthausevangelium  tmd 
§evM  Lucas-parallelen,  Die  Quellen  des  Lukas-EvangeliumSy 
Die  Quellen  des  synoptischen  tTberlieferung ;  Holtzmann,  Dit 
synoptischen  Evangelien;  Carpenter,  The  First  Three  Gospels; 
Hawkins,  Horae  Synopttcae;  Wernle,  Die  synoptische  Frage'^ 
R  A.  Abbott,  Clue,  The  Corrections  of  Mark;  Sabnon,  The 
Human  Element  in  the  Gospels ;  Burton,  Principles  of  Literary 
Criticism  and  the  Synoptic  Problem;  Wellhausen,  Einleitwng 
in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien ;  Sharman,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus 
about  the  Future ;  Nicolardot,  Les  Procedes  de  Redaction  des 
trots  premiers  Evangelistes;  Harnack,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus 
(on  Q).  For  work  at  the  Synoptic  Problem  a  synopsis  is 
required  in  which  the  parallel  sections  are  printed  in  columns 
side  by  side.  Tischendorf's  Synopsis  Evangelica  embraces  the 
four  Gospels ;  Rushbrooke's  Synopticon^  Wright's  A  Synopsis  of 
the  Gospels  in  Greek,  Campbell's  The  First  Three  Gospels, 
Huck's  Synopse  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  the  first  three.  Of 
these  Bushbrooke  is  most  valuable  for  disclosing  at  a  glance 
the  parts  common  to  all  three  of  the  Synoptists,  or  to  two  and 
which  two,  and  what  is  peculiar  to  each,  Huck  is  the  more 
convenient  for  ordinary  use. 

On  the  Gospel  of  Matthew. — Commentaries  by  Morison, 
Allen  (7.(7.(7.),  Carr  {C.G.T.),  Slater  {Cent.  B.),  Wellhausen, 
Zahn,  Klostennann  {H.N.T.). 

On  the  Gospel  of  Mark. — Commentaries  by  (jbuld  {I.C.C.), 
Maclear  {G.G.T),  Sahnond  (Gent.  B.),  Menzies  (The  Earliest 
Gospel),  Swete,  Wellhausen,  Klostennann  (H.N.T.),  Bacon  (The 
Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story).  Wrede,  Das  Messiasgeheimniss 
in  den  Evangelien;  J.  Weiss,  Das  Alteste  Evangelium;  Hoff- 
mann, Das  Marcusevangelium  und  seine  Quellen;  Wendling, 
Urmarcus,  Die  Entstehung  des  Marcusevangeliums ;  B.  Weiss, 
Die  Qesehichtlichheit  des  Marhusevangeliums  (brief  and  con- 
venient summary  of  Weiss's  special  theory). 

On  the  Gospel  of  Luke. — Commentaries  by  Godet,  Plummer 
(7.(7.(7.),  Farrar  (G.G.T.),  Adeney  (Cent.  B.),  Wellhausen, 
Krenkel,  Josephus  und  Lucas ;  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician  j 
Bamsay,  Luke  the  Physician. 


BIBLIOGBAPHY  tU 

CHAPTEE  Xm 

Commentaries  by  Zeller,  De  Wette-Overbeck,  Wendt  (hx 
Meyer),  Holtzmann  {ff.C\  Lumby  (C.G.T.),  Page,  Blasg, 
Knowling  (E.G.T.),  Rackbam  (West.  Com,),  Bartlet  (Cent.  B.), 
Knopf  (S.jy.T.),  Forbes  (I.E.). 

Spitta,  Die  Apottelgeschichte ;  J.  Weiss,  Ueber  die  Absicht 
und  den  literarischen  Charakier  der  Apostelgeachichte ;  Clemen, 
Die  Apostelgetchichte ;  Cbase,  The  Historical  Credibility  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  Hamack,  Litke  the  Physician,  The  Acts  of 
the  Apostles ;  Bamsay,  St.  Paid  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman 
Citizen^  Pauline  and  Other  StudieSy  Luke  the  Physician, 

CHAPTER  XIV 

On  the  Johannine  Writings  as  a  whole. — Commentaries 
by  Holtzmann-Bauer  (H.C.),  Forbes  (I.H.).  Gloag,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Johannine  Writings ;  Schmiedel,  The  Johannine 
Writings  ;  Schwartz,  Der  Tod  der  Sohne  Zebedaei, 


CHAPTER  XV 

Commentaries  by  Bleek,  Bousset  (in  Meyer),  Milligan, 
Simcox  (G.e.T.),  Scott  (Cent.  B.),  Swete,  J.  Weiss  (S.N.T.), 
Hort  (on  i.-iii.,  with  Introduction  to  whole  Book).  Vischer, 
Die  Offenbarung  Johannis ;  Spitta,  Die  Offenbarung  des 
Johannes  untersucht ;  Milligan,  Lectures  on  the  Apocalypse, 
Discussions  on  the  Apocalypse ;  Gunkel,  Schopfung  und  Chaos ; 
J.  Weiss,  Die  Offenbarung  des  Johannes ;  Wellhausen,  Analyse 
der  Offenbarung  Johannis ;  Porter,  The  Messages  of  the  Apoea- 
lyptie  Writers ;  Ramsay,  The  Letters  to  the  Sev&n,  Churches. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Commentaries  by  Westcott,  B.  Weiss  (in  Meyer),  Plmnmer 
(C.O.T.),  Bennett  (Cmt.  B.),  Baumgarten  (S.N.T.).  Findlay, 
Fellowship  in  the  Life  Eternal ;  On  1  John,  Rothe,  E.  Haupt ; 
Law,  The  Tests  of  Life;  On  3  John,  Hamack  in  TeaOe  und 
Untertuehungen,  voL  zv. 


S86      INTEODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTER  XVn 

Commentaries  by  B.  Weiss  (in  Meyer),  Godet,  Westcott, 
Moulton  and  Milligan,  Reynolds,  Plummer  (G.G.T.),  Doda 
{B.Q.T.),  M'Clymont  (Cent.  B.),  Heitmmier  (S.If.T.),  Loisy, 
Calmes,  Zahn. 

Sanday,  Authorship  and  Historical  Character  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  The  Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  Lightfoot,  Biblical 
Essays',  Watkins,  Modem  Criticism  and  the  Fourth  Gospel', 
O.  Holtzmann,  Das  Johannesevangelium ;  Delff,  Das  vierte 
Evangelium ;  Wendt,  St.  John's  Gospel ;  R^ville,  Le  Quatrihme 
jSvangile;  Dnunmond,  The  Character  and  Authorship  of  the 
Fourth  Ootpel ;  E.  A.  Abbott,  Johawnine  Vocabulary,  Johannine 
Grammar ;  Baldensperger,  Der  Prolog  des  vierten  Fvangeliums ; 
Jackson,  The  Fourth  Gospel;  Bjreyenbiihl,  Das  Evangelium 
dtr  Wahrheit ;  Wellhausen,  Erweiterungen  und  Anderu/ngen 
MR  merten  Evangtlimm,  Das  Evangelium  Johanmi. 


INDEX 


Hots.— B«f«nnoea  to  tli«  Bibllogimpby  are  not  indadaC 


Abbot,  E.,  179 

Abbott,  B.  A.,  97, 179  f.,  182, 190  f., 

208. 
Abilene,  184. 
Abraham,  89,  86. 
Achaia,  12,  24,  128. 
Acta  of  Archelans,  184. 
of  the  Apostles,  6,  25-27,  <1-8S, 

125-135, 148 1, 149, 161. 
Adeney,  97. 
Aenon,  200. 
Agrippa,  184. 
Alexandria,  78,  77* 
AUen,  115. 
Alogi,  166, 186. 
Ancjrra,  21. 
Andrew,  187,  222. 
Antichrist,  14,  155.  162  f.,  171. 
Antioeh  in  Pisidia,  17,  20,  180. 

in  Syria,  26,  28-80. 

Antiochns  Epiphanes,  14. 
Apocalypse,  «e«  ReTelation. 
Apollo,  158. 
ApoUos,  79-81,  201. 
Apostasy,  12,  14  f.,  76  f.,  167. 
Apostolic  Age,  6,  6. 

Conference,  25-27,  80. 

Fathers,  49,  76. 

Aqnila,  42-44,  80 1 

Arabia,  24. 

Aramaic,  73,  109,  114, 122,  216. 

Aristion,  122,  187. 

Aristobolos,  44. 

Aniold,M.,21f£ 


Asia,  23  f.,  43,  95,  138-142, 146-147. 

167,  174,  177,  188. 
Athens,  11,  18,  180. 
Augustine,  77. 

Babtlok,  94  f.,  162. 

Babylonia,  154  f.,  168  f. 

Baldensperger,  224. 

Barnabas,  22,  25, 29  f.,  77 1,  W,  148; 

179. 
Bartlet,  J.  V.,  26,  71,  188. 
Bamch,  167. 
BasU,  54. 
Basilides,  184. 

Baur.  P.  C,  2-7,  39,  41,  6711,  64. 
Beast,  153,  157,  159,  162  f. 
BeloTed   Disciple,   140  t,   146-161, 

186  f.,  191,  223. 
Bernard!,  J.  H.,  146. 
Bethany,  207. 
Bethesda,  208. 
Beyschlag,  61. 
Bithynia,  19,  21,  28,  96. 
Bleek,  45,  80, 152. 
Blood  and  water,  187-191,  205,  226 
Boosset,  14,  147  f.,  155  f.,  182.  216. 
Borkitt,  118,  117,  184, 148. 

Caebabba,  48  f.,  81. 126. 
Caesarea  Philippi,  220. 
Caiaphas,  198. 
Caius,  77,  166,  186. 
Caligula,  15, 168. 
Cma,  200,  204,  206  L 


238       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


Oaaoa,  2. 

Capernaam,  197,  204,  207,  217. 

Carthaginian  Calendar,  146. 

Cerinthus,  166,  185. 

Chase,  17,  96. 

Cilicia,  18,  22. 

Claudius,  16,  44,  134. 

Clemen,  145,  202. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  90,  99, 121  f., 

186,  140,  170,  178. 
of  Rome,    31  f.,    89,   68,    61, 

72f.,  77-79,  82f.,  86f.,90. 
Clementine  Homilies  and    Recogni- 

tioni,  8,  6. 
Colossae,  48,  60,  62. 
Colossians,  Epistle  to,  46-63,  65-67. 
Conybeare,  P.  C,  122. 
Corinth,  11,  16, 18,  22,  32,  35-37,  39, 

48.  80. 
Corinthians,  Epistles  to,  8  f.,  27,  29, 

81-38,  89,  46. 
Cornelius,  57. 
Corssen,  149  t 
Creighton,  190. 
Cyprian,  77. 
Cyprus,  18,  22,  127, 1481 

Dahasoub,  24. 

Daniel,  109, 152-154,  159. 

Day  of  the  Lord,  IS. 

Deborah,  80. 

Dechent,  19L 

Delff,  147. 

Denney,  44. 

Derbe,  17,  24, 

De  Wette,  66. 

Dieterich,  163. 

Dionysius,  16«. 

Diotrephes,  174  f. 

Dobschtitz,  Von,  148. 

Docetism,  149  f.,  171, 183,  205, 224 f. 

Domitian.   53,  83,  91,  93,  133,  166, 

162f.,  i65f.,  169,172. 
Double  Tradition,  103, 106  f.,  111-113. 
Dragon,  160. 
Drommond,  187, 179 1 


Ebionibh,  85. 

Ebionites,  3. 

Egypt,  99,  122,  178. 

Emperor  Worship,  167. 

Enoch,  167. 

Epaeiietns,  48. 

Epaphroditus,  47 

Epbesians,  Episth  to,  45-57,  94. 

Ejihesus,  18,  21,  29,  31,  42-44,  4«. 

53  f.,  139-142,  146  f.,  167,  173  t. 

224. 
Epiphanius,  185. 
Eschatology,  16,  154. 
Essenisra,  67. 

Eusebius,  139,  145,  167, 180  f. 
Ewald,  H.,  162. 
P.,  64. 

Fadub,  130. 

Famine  Visit,  26-27,  SO. 

Feast  of  Dedication,  195. 

of  Tabernacles,  195  f. 

Findlay,  174. 
Florinus,  138. 

Gaitts,  174. 

Galatia,  12,  17-21,  24,  27,  29. 

Oalatians,  Epistle  to,  8  f.,  17  80,  40, 

45. 
Galatic  Territory,  19-21. 
Gallio,  128. 
Gamaliel,  130  f. 
Gauls,  17,  21. 
Gentile  Christians,  6,  26,  89-41,  7<l, 

131. 

Mission,  8,  85,  129. 

Gentiles,  13,  28,  55-57. 
Georgios  Hamartolos,  142. 
Gnosticism,  14,  50  f.,  56  f.,  58,  66  fc, 

100,  171-173,  181, 184. 
Gnostics,  76,  160  f.,  172,  183. 
Godet,  61. 
Golgotha,  200. 
Grill,  202. 
Gunkel,  164  £,1081 


INDEX 


fS9 


Hadbiaw.  182. 

Hardy,  90. 

H»rnack,  44,  64,  70,  80,  86-88,  94, 

119, 124, 126  f.,  131, 134, 140, 145  f. , 

149,  153,  169,  173,  176,  182  f.,  186, 

201,  216. 
Harru,  J.  R,  80,  178. 
Hastings,  J.,  184. 
Hausrath,  15,  17,  35,  89. 
HawkioB,  126. 
Hebrew,  114,  122 1 
Hebrews,  Epistle  to  th*,  89,  72-88, 

201,  219. 
Hegemonins,  184. 
Hegesippus,  64. 
Hellenists,  128. 
Heracleon,  183  f. 
Heraclitos,  201. 
Hernias,  31,  76,  86  f.,  177. 
Hermetic  literature,  202 1 
Herod,  26, 144. 
Hicks,  £.  L.,  81. 
HUgenfeld,  2,  4,  14,  67, 179. 
Hippolytus,  77,  166, 178,  184  f. 
Hobart,  127. 
Holsten,  2,  86,  57f. 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  36,  61  f.,  67,  116, 

134, 170, 198.  206. 

0.,198. 

Hort,  61,  67,  H,  16«,  169. 
HoniB,  168. 

loomnic,  17,  90i 

Ignatins,  81,  89,  46,  68,  69,  66,  126, 

142,  171  f.,  182  f. 
Imprisonment,  Epistles  of  the,  45- 

59. 
Irenaens,  10,  82,  49,  63,  69  f.,  77,  87, 

90, 118  f.,  122,  124  f.,  186,  138  f., 

146, 166, 170, 177  f.,  182  f.,  185. 

Jamss,  EFurrLi  of,  39,  84-S9,  90. 

the  Lord's  brother,  84  f.,  87-89, 

144. 
the  K»  of  Zebedee,  137, 142-144, 


Jerome,  77. 

Jerusalem,  28,  25-80,  66,  72  f.,  79, 

82,  104,  107,  122,  128,   131,   145, 

147-149,  160,  197,  200,  207. 
Destruction  of,   11,   ?2f.,  86, 

122,  133,  163,  166, 169,  197,  223. 

Siege  of,  14,  119,  163  f. 

Visits  of  Christ  to,  218-215,  221 

Paul's  visits  to,  22-25,  29,  181. 

Jewish  Christianity,  3. 

Christians,  40,  49,  64,  72,  74-76, 

84f.,87,  95,  128. 
Job,  85. 

John,  Epistles  of,  136, 170-175, 190-8. 
Gospel  of,  6,  136,  140  f.,  146- 

151,  168-169,  170,  177-228. 

the  Apostle,  136-228. 

the   Baptist,   104,   109.   145  f , 

211.  218,  2161,  220-222,  224-226. 
the  Presbyter,  119,  122,  137  f., 

140  f.,  147  f.,  156,  167-9, 176, 186  f. 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  214,  216. 
Josephus.  83,  97,  180  f.,  133-135. 
Judaism,  6,  15,  73-76,  82,  84,  183, 

168,  172. 
Judaizers,  46,  68. 
Judas  the  Galilsean,  181, 184. 

Iscariot,  210  f. 

not  Iscariot,  211. 

Jude,  96-100,  172. 

JUlicher,  17,  86,  88,  119,  156,  176, 

224. 
Justin  Martyr,  49,  76,  86,  126,  140, 

166,  178-180. 

Kbiu,  187, 179, 198. 
Kern,  14. 
Kidron,  199. 
Kingdom  of  God,  fllL 
Krenkel,  134. 
KrtlKer,  182. 
Ktihl,  91. 

T.AKB,  161,  161, 169, 16B. 
Laodicea,  66. 
Laodiceans,  Epistle  to,  Si, 


140       INTRODUCTION  TO  THB  NEW  TESTAMENT 


LMt  Supper,  148,  216u 

Law,  11,  25,  28,  58,  67,  72,  ISO. 

—  Soman,  6S. 

Lawlessness,  13-1 6. 

LaiarTU,204f.,  207,222t 

Leontopolis,  7S. 

Lencian  Acta  of  John,  149-161. 

Lietzmann,  85,  44. 

Llghtfoot.  20,  41  f.,  46  f.,  120,  129, 

137,  146,  179,  181,  199. 
LogU,  111-113, 122,  180,  186. 
Logos  Doctrine,    171,    179  f.,    186, 

200-203,  212,  225  f. 
Loisy,  179,  183,  224. 
Liicke,  152. 
Luke,  18  f.,  26,  62. 
Gospel  of;  6, 101-lSii,  179, 181, 

222. 
Lother,  79. 
Ltttzelbergrer,  187. 
Lycaonia,  17,  ISa 
Lycos,  49. 
Lysanias,  134 1 
Lystra,  17,  24. 

Maoisohia,  18,  24,  88,  4IL 

Malchns,  207. 

Marcion,  3,  41,  53  f..  64  f.,  67. 

Canon  of,  10,  82,  39, 47,  49,  53, 

69  f.,  76,  124. 
Mardnk,  158. 
Mark,  5, 101-124, 143-146, 167, 181  f., 

186,  209,  211,  220. 
Martin,  G.  C,  89. 
Martinean,  170. 
Martyrdom  of  John  and  James,  142- 

145. 
Matthew,  101-124,  137, 181  f.,  186. 
Mayor,  97. 

McGifiert,  29  f.,  71,  98. 
Mead,  202. 
Memra,  202 1 

Messiah,  28, 160, 194  f.,  213, 219-222. 
Messianic  Beliefs,  203  t 

Proof  texts,  11& 

lf«7«r,  2, 61. 


Miletus,  62 

Missionary  Journey,  first,  17,  24. 

Journey,  second,  18  f.,  28,  27, 

29  f. 

Journey,  third,  27,  29. 

Mommsen,  90  f. 

Montanists,  78. 

Moulton,  J.  H.,  80,  89. 

Muratorian  Canon,  10,  32,  47,  49,  59, 

59  f.,  76,  90,  99,  170, 178. 
Mysia,  19, 21,  23. 

Naroisbus,  44. 

Nath&nael,  194,  222. 

Neander,  61. 

Nero,  14,  62,  91,  168,  166  f.,  162  f., 

165. 
Neronian  Persecution,  61,  88,  94. 
Neumann,  90. 

Nicodemns,  147,  204,  207,  211. 
North  Qalatia,  18-20,  24. 
Galatian  Theory,  17,  20  t,  2$, 

27,29. 
Novatian,  77. 

Old  Latik  Vhibioh,  IOl 

Onesimus,  48. 

Oral  Theory,  104-109 

Tradition,  106-109, 116. 

Origen,  64,  77,  87,  90,  98  f.,  166, 17a 

Palbstins,  128, 142, 149. 

Paley,  180. 

Pamphylia,  28. 

Papias,  90,  105-107,  112-114,  119  f., 

122,  187,  189,  141-147,  167,  170, 

180, 186. 
Parousia,  10,  12,  56. 
Parthians,  163,  165. 
Paschal  Controversy,  189. 
Passover,  195,  215  f. 
Pastoral  Epistles,  60-71. 
Patmos,  144,  167. 
Paul,  8,  5  f..  10-71,  76-79,  81-83,  84, 

86,  91  f.,  iai  f.,  187, 142  f.,  216  f. 
and  Theola,  160, 


INDEX 


Ml 


PtaHniBm,  S,S71,49,a«. 

Pkrement,  200. 

Pergamum,  174. 

Person  of  Ohiift,  46,  49  t,  68,  149, 

171  f. 
PMhHU,  87. 
P«ter,  8,  24  f.,  28,  68,  61,  79,  90-100, 

118-1 28.  137,  144,  146,  149,  182, 

186,  207-211,  220. 
Peter,  Apocalypse  of,  98  f. 

First  EpiBtle  of,  89,  63,  90-96. 

Second  Epistle  of.  90.  94,  96- 

99. 
PetTM,  208. 
Pfleiderer,  2, 17,  46,  69,  149  f.,  156, 

168  f.,  170,  180,  182  t,  206,  224, 

227. 
Pharisees,  129,  196. 
Philemon,  4,  46-49. 
Philip  the  Apostle,  187, 140. 194, 222. 

one  of  the  Seren,  49,  126, 140. 

of  Side,  142. 

Phmppi,46f.,127. 

Philippians,  4,  45-48.  67-60. 

Philo.  200-208,  208. 

Phrygi*.  17,  20 1 

Phrygian  and  Oalatian  Ooontry,  18. 

Phrygians,  22. 

Phrygo-Qalatic  Territory,  30. 

Pilate.  225. 

PUl&r  Apostles,  S.  148. 

Pisidia,  17. 

Pliny,  90. 

Poimandres ,  203. 

Polycarp.  31  t,  89,  46,  68,  69,  60, 

64,  90, 126,  188  f.,  142,  170,  177, 

182  f. 
Polycrates,  186, 189 1 
PontoB.  96. 
Pool  of  Bethesda,  20a 

of  Siloam,  200. 

Pre-ezistence,  219. 
Prisea,  42-44,  80 1 

Q.,  Ill,  116-119, 12S-1S4,  lA 
Quirinlas,  1S4. 


Rahab,  86. 

Ramsay,  17,  20,  31,  80,  44,  81.  W  fL 

Reformation,  90l 

Reinach,  166. 

Reitzenstein,  202. 

Renan.  17.  41  f.,  231 

Reach,  181. 

Resurrection,  106,  117,  129. 

Revelation  of  John.  186  t,  144,  147, 

160  f.,  162-169,  18a 
Rirille.  206. 
RUheU,  224. 
Ritschl.  4. 

Robinson,  J.  A.,  146. 
Roman  Bmperor,  16,  62,  159,  162. 
Empire.  8,  16,  62, 183.  158, 167, 

166. 
Romans,  Epistle  to,  37  1,  89-44,  45, 

94. 
Rom^  78,  121.  128,  182,  143,  167, 

162 1, 177  f. 
Church  of,  89  f:,  48,  74,  76,  78^ 

119. 

Sabatux,  61. 

Saddaoees,  129. 

Salmon,  184. 

Salmond.  178^ 

Samaria,  222: 

Samaria,  Woman  o^  306-207, 210, 317, 

222. 
Suiday,  86,  61,  132,  156,  179,  183, 

191,  208  f. 
Sanday  and  Headlam,  44. 
Sarah,  96. 
Satan,  172. 

Sayings  of  Jesna,  8,  86 1    Sm  Lo«ifti 
Schiele,  80. 
Sohleiermacher.  61. 
Sohmiedel,   17,  49,    184,    170,  181^ 

1871,  m,  194, 1961.,  208. 
Beholten,  137. 
Bchalz,  42. 
SehOrer,  17, 121,  182,  184,  199,  SU^ 

220,222. 
Sehwarti,  148 1,  17«  181 1,  20. 


242       INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


Behwegler,  2. 

Scott,  E.  F.,  224. 

Second  Coming,  8,  10,  12  f.,  16,  55, 

65,  85,  98,  149. 
Septuagint,  73,  78,  123. 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  84  IIS. 
Servant  of  Yahweh,  92. 
Seren  Churches,  187,  140,  144,  165, 

167, 172. 
Sheol,  223. 
SUas,  79,  93  f.,  126. 
Simon  Magus,  3,  6,  206. 

of  Gyrene,  216. 

Soden,  Von,  52,  88,  91,  93, 117,  121, 

164. 
Soath  Galatia,  18,  21  f.,  24,  26. 
Galatian  Theory,  17  f.,  21-23, 

27,29. 
Spain,  61. 

Spencer,  John,  208. 
Spltta,  84,  97,  153,  15S. 
Staehelin,  184. 
Steinmann,  17. 
Stephen,  129  f.,  14Sw 
Stoics,  201. 
StransB,  156. 
Stroud,  190. 
Swete,  156. 
Sychar,  206. 
Symbolism   in  the    Fourth  Oospel, 

205-209,  213,  215. 
Synoptic  Gospels,  101-124,  146,  151, 

168,  179  f.,  213-223. 

Problem,  101-119. 

Syria,  18,  22, 123. 
Syriac  Calendar,  146. 
Version,  10. 

Tabqtthb,  123,  202. 

Tatian's  Diatessaron,  178. 

Taylor,  C,  177. 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  90. 

Temple,  14  f.,  73,  79,  82,  119,  167, 

160,  199,  204. 
cleansing   of    the,    210,    220- 

222. 
Egyptian,  78. 


Temptation,  117. 

Tertullian,  54,  77  f.,  87,  90,  99, 168^ 

170,  178. 
Theophilus,  49,  125,  178. 
Thessalouians,  Epistles  to  the,  4,  lOu 

16,  27. 
Thessalonica,  11,  13,  127. 
Theudas,  130  f.,  134. 
Thomas,  137,  211. 
Timothy,  11  f.,  23,  30,  84,  60-71,  71, 

79,  82,  125. 
Titus,  23,  26,  33-36,  60-71,  125  f. 
Roman    Emperor,  88,    162 1, 

165. 
Trajan,  53,  90f.,  183. 
Triple  Tradition,  103,  106-111, 114. 
Tubingen  School,  2,  4,  6,  12,  SI,  4% 

136,  168,  194,  205. 
Two-Document  Hypothesis,  llSw 

Ubuaskus,  114. 

YALlNTIHIAinSM,  188. 

Valentiaians,  179. 
Valentinus,  183. 
Vespasian,  14,  128,  162  t,  166L 
Victor,  139  f. 
Vischer,  153,  155. 

Wb-sbotiows,  125-128. 

Weiss,  B.,  116,  117. 

Weiss,  J.,  21,  155 f.,  168-185. 

WeizsScker,  17,  115,  156,  212,  219. 

Wellhausen,  116, 119, 121, 134, 148  f., 

156,  170,  215,  227. 
Wendt,  17,  115,  134,  191,  191,  197, 

203,  215,  226. 
Wernle,  179,  183,  223. 
Westcott,  179,  188  f. 
Western  Text,  131. 
Wrede,  82,  207. 

Zaohabuh,  119. 

Zahn,  17.  44,  132, 146, 191. 

Zealots,  119. 

ZeUer,  2. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


^ATI 1^^^^ 


■  002  677-7 


A  ■  -oof  Sri'l!**™ 


